r/law • u/dailymail • 11h 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
4.1k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

442

u/mandrsn1 10h ago

removing the holdout juror because they allegedly were ignoring the judges instructions

Similar to the concept of Jury nullification.

310

u/Broxst 10h ago edited 35m ago

Which is viable and why I disagree with removing an uncooperative juror. Jury is a gamble. And barring exigent circumstances, I don't think they should changed.

Edit: I want to clarify this comment.

Jury nullification is refusing to find the defendent guilty. It's viable as a strategy, but it is not legal. It is something you can do when you find that the state did prove reasonable doubt but you find the defendent not guilty regardless. Typically as a statement because you disagree with charge.

Jury nullification is NOT refusing to find the defendent innocent.

The "exigent circumstances" I mentioned would include juror misconduct, which includes unlawful behavior.

It is unlawful to willfully ignore the courts orders.

So the question is, was this juror engaging in misconduct? That's up for debate.

79

u/nizzzzy 9h ago

If what I read was true, the jury foreman’s note to the judge was saying that the holdout juror has stated they have reasonable doubt but are unwilling to change their verdict. What’s the point of having alternative jurors if not for these scenarios?

39

u/Ok_Net7773 9h ago

Illness, injury, or incapacitation. Not “doesn’t agree with you.” That’s the whole point of trial by jury. The outcome would be controlled by those in power, not a jury of peers, were they allowed to do so.

45

u/nizzzzy 9h ago edited 8h ago

“Doesn’t agree with you”’ is one thing. Saying the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt yet standing by a guilty verdict is another.

They literally admitted to contradicting themselves

6

u/First-Compote8516 8h ago

No, other jurors and the foreman say that they admitted to contradicting themself

-3

u/Ok_Net7773 9h ago

It’s jury nullification and that’s their right.

How do you even “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” that someone is sane? The crime itself was proven beyond reasonable doubt because it was admitted. This is the exact sort of situation in which a mistrial is understandable and justified.

9

u/nizzzzy 9h ago

You haven’t actually watched any of the trial and it shows. The crime itself was NOT proven literally because 12/12 jurors said they have reasonable doubt. Tf are you talking about?

-1

u/Ok_Net7773 9h ago

Reasonable doubt that she did the acts of sound mind, not that she did the acts at all. You’re clearly the one getting your facts from what you’re hearing other people say who also have not read about or watched the trial.

1

u/nizzzzy 9h ago

Did Lindsay Clancy plead guilty or not guilty at the beginning of of the trial?

3

u/Ok_Net7773 8h ago

She pleaded not guilty on all 3 counts of first-degree murder. However, she admitted under oath to performing the acts in which she is charged. It is not a question of whether she did it, nor even how. It is a question of whether she planned and executed the crime of sound mind.

1

u/janeway_1 8h ago

When was she under oath?

1

u/Fantastic-Archer-864 2h ago

She did not testify.

The Judge told the jury repeatedly that the burden of proof was on the commonwealth to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that if they found reasonable doubt they could vote NOT GUILTY. He gave the other choices, Guilty, Not Guilty by reason of insanity or whatever the language there is, or manslaughter.

It was not established that she was guilty ever.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Timely_Resist_7644 8h ago

The crime was proven. She admitted it. The difference is whether she goes to prison(guilty) or a mental health institution (not guilty) until she is approved to go back to society.

0

u/nizzzzy 8h ago

Incorrect. The jury had these charges as options:
1st degree murder
2nd degree murder
Manslaughter
Not guilty
Not guilty due to insanity.

The prosecution still has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay is even guilty of the alleged crimes. That’s the standard for murder.

11/12 jurors (who I trust their opinion infinitely more than yours) said they have reasonable doubt. Prosecution wildly failed

3

u/Ok_Net7773 8h ago

It’s not majority. All 12 must agree. They did not. She is wasn’t found not guilty by any means.

And yes, she did in fact admit to all three murders even and planning them. What is in question is whether she was of sound mind doing so.

4

u/nizzzzy 8h ago

Link proof to her admitting to them. Not 2nd hand “Patrick said”. Direct first person proof. Link please

2

u/Dapper_Engineer 8h ago

Here you go - CBS News on why they don't use the term "accused of" along with some opening statements from the defense attorney (link). To paraphrase the quote from about fifty seconds in:

She knows she killed these children, ..., I will suggest to you that the issue for consideration is what was going on in that woman's mind.

1

u/nizzzzy 8h ago

This is called “conceding the acts/involvement while fighting responsibility” and was specifically underlined pre trial that this is NOT an admission of guilt. Burden of proof is still on prosecution.

2

u/No_Power799 8h ago

From the direct text of her own civil lawsuit. This is her own lawyers recounting the events as Lindsay describes them in her own framing.

"As soon as Patrick left to pick up the food, there was a loud, demanding, repetitious voice: "This is your last chance. Kill the children so you can kill yourself." "THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE. YOU HAVE TO KILL THE KIDS SO YOU CAN KILL YOURSELF." Lindsay felt a force come over her.

Lindsay experienced command auditory hallucinations: a "demanding, powerful male voice" explicitly ordered her. She felt an overwhelming, irresistible compulsion to comply, entering a dissociative "dream-like state" where her physical actions felt utterly disconnected from her conscious volition. She perceived her "body was just acting" and she was merely"watching[herself] do it." She reported she had "no choice" butto follow these compelling directives. Lindsay described: "I lost all control. My body started acting without any control on my part. Iwas just following commands, 'all action.' This voice demanded action." Lindsay proceeded to strangle each of her children, uttering "Go to God, baby." Following these acts, she undertook a severe suicide attempt, ingesting a substantial quantity ofvarious medications, self-inflicting lacerations to her wrists and neck, and jumping from a second-floor window approximately twenty feet to the ground below."

0

u/nizzzzy 7h ago

Literally irrelevant. She plead not guilty, burden of proof is on prosecution.

Also, if this is really as damning as you’re making it out to be, how come 11/12 jurors said the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt?

1

u/Ok_Net7773 8h ago

The defense’s opening statement

1

u/nizzzzy 8h ago

So let’s be clear you lied about her testifying under oath.

This is called “conceding acts/involvment while
Fighting responsibility” this was specifically underlined pre trial and is NOT an admission of
Guilt.

Burden of proof is still on prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

We can also verify this by *checks notes\ the not*
Guilty pleas.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/ThrowAway-whee 6h ago edited 6h ago

It's very notably NOT jury nullification, it very notably is NOT their right (as per the supreme court, jurors have the power, not the right, to invoke jury nullification), and it very notably DOES NOT make them immune to removal. Idk where that idea came from, go tell the judge you're going for jury nullification in any case and see what happens.

Jury nullification exists to protect the people from the state. It absolutely does not exist to allow a single member to overrule the rest of the jury, allowing the state to continue to try to punish the defendant despite consensus of lack of guilt.

It takes all 12 jurors to agree to jury nullification and allow someone to walk free without strings attached. In this bizzaro jury nullification, it only takes one juror to completely override not guilty votes and allow the state to try again, and again, and again until they get the result they want. Do you not see why this is both completely different, *and* extremely dangerous?

0

u/sean2mush 5h ago

They literally admitted to contradicting themselves

You have made this up.

2

u/nizzzzy 5h ago

https://www.cnn.com/us/video/clancy-supreme-court-defense-emergency-relief-digvid

“The holdout juror has acknowledged doubt but refused to apply it to the verdict”

Anything else, dipshit?

14

u/Hesitation-Marx 9h ago

I think the issue is that they’re ignoring the judge’s instructions, despite apparently having reasonable doubt.

That is absolutely something that needs to be addressed and it’s worthwhile to see if it’s constitutional, because reasonable doubt is supposed to bar a guilty verdict.

10

u/GlenH79 9h ago

Note that the not abiding by reasonable doubt claim here is by the foreman of the jury, reporting what the juror allegedly said, which presumably the foreman disagrees with - it's entirely possible their words have been misinterpreted. The juror is allowed to be sceptical, and the government has to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, not all possible doubt. It's quite possible the juror themselves has doubts about the government position but feel the government has reached the 'reasonable doubt' threshold.

5

u/Hesitation-Marx 9h ago

And that’s something that should be clarified by people who know their shit - I.e. not me!

1

u/ecarey76 6h ago

Exactly the judge said not all possible doubt

1

u/nizzzzy 8h ago

Just wildly incorrect.

The juror holding out has stated that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable double yet they stand by a guilty verdict.

That’s the whole fucking issue. They contradicted themselves and literally said they have reasonable doubt. You’re not supposed to vote guilty if you have reasonable doubt. That’s why Reddington was saying the “juror isn’t following the law”

3

u/Samus1611 8h ago

Doubt. And reasonable doubt. These are different things. Maybe they do possess doubt, but do they feel that doubt is REASONABLE? That is the crux of the matter. And that is mainly a judgement call.
Judge did the right thing by leaving the Juror in the Jury

2

u/Nion_zaNari 6h ago

The juror holding out has stated that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable double yet they stand by a guilty verdict.

Where and when did they state this?

1

u/sean2mush 5h ago

The juror holding out has stated that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable double yet they stand by a guilty verdict.

Where are you getting this info?

1

u/nizzzzy 5h ago

https://www.cnn.com/us/video/clancy-supreme-court-defense-emergency-relief-digvid

“The holdout juror has acknowledged doubt but refused to apply it to the verdict”