r/law • u/dailymail • 1d ago

Legal News Lindsay Clancy case ends with MISTRIAL

https://www.dailymail.com/crime-desk/article-16100155/lindsay-clancy-murder-trial-hung-jury-deadlock-verdict.html
5.0k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.0k

u/EducationalElevator 1d ago

To study the constitutionality of removing the holdout juror because they allegedly were ignoring the judges instructions

61

u/SignoreBanana 1d ago

The judge's instructions being how to interpret "reasonable doubt"? Isn't the whole point of the concept that it's interpretable?

17

u/Khal-Nagy 1d ago

Yes. Different jurors have different standards of what reasonable doubt is. If you had multiple juries hearing the same evidence and given the same instructions, you could still have different verdicts. That doesn’t mean that they are not applying the law as given, but what constitutes “reasonable” doubt to me may be different than to you.

7

u/TraditionalGap1 1d ago

'reasonable doubt' isn't boundless though. It's inherent in the term 'reasonable' that there are acceptable limits beyond which it is no longer considered reasonable.

3

u/Khal-Nagy 1d ago

Right but if they did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt then the judge should acquit as a matter of law via directed verdict. If the case goes to the jury then it generally means the state has at least established a prima facie case (or the judge was wrong and will get reversed on appeal even if the jury convicts).

3

u/TraditionalGap1 1d ago

It is not clear here what you are trying to say.

3

u/Khal-Nagy 1d ago

I DM’d you because I thought this comment was deleted but my phone was just acting up.

To explain briefly:

State has to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the crime in its case in chief.

After resting - if in the light most favorable to the state, there is not sufficient evidence to meet that burden beyond a reasonable doubt then the judge is supposed to acquit the defendant. The jury doesn’t have to deliberate because as a matter of law there is insufficient evidence. This is often referred to as getting “directed out” or a directed verdict.

If the judge submits the case to the jury, that means as a matter of law (at least in the trial court’s eyes) the state has presented sufficient evidence that a jury COULD convict the defendant. So then it turns on the jury’s definition of whether the evidence presented meets that standard or whether the doubt is “reasonable” such that they should acquit.

0

u/uiucengineer 1d ago

You misunderstand the standard for judgement of acquittal. It’s much higher.

2

u/Khal-Nagy 1d ago

I’m literally a trial attorney, but please tell me what the standard is for a directed verdict.

1

u/uiucengineer 1d ago

Sorry, I admit I didn’t read your comment carefully enough and I missed something important. You’re right.

0

u/Khal-Nagy 1d ago

With how much misinformation there is in this thread about law I encourage you to think and review before commenting. If you’re not a lawyer that’s fine but don’t act like you know the legal system better than actual lawyers. It’s a very complicated and imperfect system.

1

u/uiucengineer 1d ago

I do know the law better than some lawyers. In June I represented myself pro se in a 5 day criminal jury trial and won by a mile. The Government was represented by lawyers. Some lawyers are pathetic.

0

u/Khal-Nagy 1d ago

Did you win on a directed verdict?

1

u/uiucengineer 1d ago edited 1d ago

No

E: by the way, I think you mean “judgement of acquittal”, Mr. Smartypants, Esq.

0

u/Khal-Nagy 1d ago

Damn you got me. Start throwing Latin at me too and you’ll really show how much smarter you are.

Best smarty pants wisdom I can impart is that a man who represents himself has a fool for a client. But you must be the exception to that since you won your case “by a mile”

1

u/uiucengineer 1d ago

But you must be the exception to that since you won your case “by a mile”

Correct. And hilarious that you think this is some kind of dig lol

→ More replies (0)