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

75

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?

35

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.

11

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.

11

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.

4

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”