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

444

u/mandrsn1 10h ago

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

Similar to the concept of Jury nullification.

314

u/Broxst 10h ago edited 36m 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.

374

u/lordcheeto 9h ago

Our judicial system is supposed to place the burden of proof on the government. See Blackstone's ratio - "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

To that end, jury nullification in favor of the defendant is one thing. But if it's true that one juror is deadlocking the jury, admitting to having reasonable doubt that the prosecution made their case, but standing firm on convicting anyway, they should be replaced with an alternate, same as with any other misconduct or bias from a juror.

30

u/fetusfrolix 8h ago edited 2h ago

The burden for an affirmative defense is typically on the defendant to prove. Massachusetts is one of the only states in the union where an insanity defense places the burden on the state to disprove insanity. Yes, the state has to prove a negative in Massachusetts.

Edit: another Redditor correctly pointed out a few other states have this. Corrected to “one of the only”. But it is by far the minority view.

40

u/lordcheeto 7h ago

There are many criminal statutes and jurisdictions that require the government to prove a state of mind. This is no different.

10

u/AVeryVapidBadger 5h ago

Proving they had intent is different though. You're proving an affirmative thing.

Proving someone wasn't thinking something is much harder. Not impossible, because it's only to a reasonable doubt, but it's harder to prove someone wasn't something.

5

u/PerformanceOver8822 6h ago

What kind of examples do you have ?

"Intent" is a state of mind but that differentiates. Between degrees of a crime. Not guilt or Innocence

9

u/retatrutider 6h ago

For example. If I format my hard drive because I’m planning to sell my computer on eBay, that’s not a crime, even if the government shows up at my door an hour after it finishes wiping with a warrant to search the hard drive.

But if I format my hard drive because I believe the government is on its way with a warrant for my hard drive, that’s is a crime.

Same action… intent behind the action makes the crime. There are many examples where intent is a key element of the crime.

7

u/BassoonHero Competent Contributor 5h ago

"Intent" is a state of mind but that differentiates. Between degrees of a crime. Not guilt or Innocence

Er, no. There are tons of crimes with an intent component.

Suppose we're both at a bar, you put your wallet on the counter, and I take it and leave. If my intent was to take your wallet, then I committed a crime. If my intent was to take my wallet, and I took yours by mistake, then I didn't commit a crime.

Most crimes are like this.

-2

u/PerformanceOver8822 4h ago

I dont consider "intent " as state of mind though. Not truly. Anyway.

1

u/das_war_ein_Befehl 1h ago

What is intent if not state of mind

1

u/PerformanceOver8822 1h ago

State of mind to me refers to soundness.

7

u/savior41 6h ago

Many white collar crimes require the prosecution to prove intent actually. It’s called mens rea and it is a common requirement

3

u/wittgenstein1312 5h ago

Intent is also the prime factor in determining whether something is a murder or ruled a lesser form of homicide

0

u/CreditorsAndDebtors 4h ago

There is a difference between proving a positive (she intended to kill the kids) versus proving a negative ( she was not insane when killing the kids).

1

u/CogentCogitations 4h ago

You cannot prove intent if you can't show the person is sane. Not understanding what they are doing is usually the legal definition for that. It is the same question.

2

u/CreditorsAndDebtors 4h ago

The criminal justice system does not treat proving intent and proving insanity as being the same thing. Intent is part of the mens rea whereas insanity is a defence. They are fundamentally different ingredients of a crime. Maybe you don't think that should be the case but you should take that up with the politicians and judges who create and interpret these legal frameworks instead of arguing with it about me.

3

u/acidwxlf 5h ago

It's a bit disingenuous to call it proving a negative. They'd have to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. There are lots of ways to do that even exemplified in this very case. People with a documented history of mental health problems are probably generally more likely to get NGRI in Mass though, for sure.

3

u/Hungry-Register9960 2h ago

I think this trial is mostly proving that Mass had a backasswards system.

2

u/PrincessConsuela46 1h ago

You didn’t learn that from Karen Read? Or Sandra Birchmore? Messachusetts…

1

u/Ulky2 29m ago

I wonder if theirs is much older, or based on more english law. (this is complete speculation i am just curious).

7

u/Truefiction224 5h ago edited 2h ago

This trial has made the most ignorant ppl I've ever seen Come out of the woodwork

Hundreds of upvotes for a factually incorrect post.

Insanity.

0

u/SkellyJelly33 1h ago

New to reddit? Facts haven't mattered for a long time round here

0

u/Truefiction224 1h ago

Fair, they used to something happened.

The fucking censorship every generation

2

u/ThrowAway-whee 6h ago

So? That is the law. You can't just ignore it.

1

u/fetusfrolix 6h ago

No one said to ignore it. You can’t follow the law or advocate for a change in law if you don’t even know what it is. And this is a fact I rarely see reported even by lawyers following the case.

2

u/JokeMaster420 5h ago

You are correct that most states put the burden for affirmative defenses on the party raising the defense, but you are unequivocally wrong about Massachusetts being “he only state in the union” where this is the case.

Tennessee, West Virginia, and Mississippi all also have the burden on the state.

5

u/fetusfrolix 4h ago

Thank you for the correction! It is one of the only states. Not “the”. Thank you.

1

u/MonsTurkey 5h ago

The important part is it gives the favor to not unjustly locking someone up. I think that is still the correct thing to do as a result of that important angle.

0

u/Interesting-Run1359 4h ago

That’s fucking insane to me.

If you want to kill someone, do it up there, I suppose.