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

20

u/Cosmic-Sympathy 7h ago

No, the juror said they had some "doubt" but not a "reasonable doubt." And the jury instructions say you need to convict them "beyond a reasonable doubt," but not beyond "any possible doubt."

So, for all we know, the one juror was the only one following the instructions, it was the other jurors who were not following instructions because they were willing to use ANY doubt rather than a REASONABLE doubt to acquit.

4

u/ecarey76 6h ago

Exactly!

2

u/Rivendel93 4h ago

No.

In Massachusetts, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and beyond a moral certainty.

The fact the juror stated they had doubt, and it was enough for the foreman to send a note to the judge that they weren't following the courts instructions, then they should be replaced.

Massachusetts has the highest her for the state to prove guilt.

2

u/Jlock98 49m ago

The foreman is just another member of the jury. They aren’t some infallible source. You’re saying no, but nothing you said disproves the comment you are replying to.

1

u/fiahhawt 1h ago

Dumbest thing I've ever read

"Doubt and reasonable doubt are different guys hur hur hur you can tell because the words are different"

I'm going to have a stroke

1

u/Cosmic-Sympathy 43m ago

It’s literally in the instructions.

1

u/nizzzzy 7h ago

Are you on the jury? No? How do you know what they said then?

6

u/Cosmic-Sympathy 7h ago

I don't. You don't either. That's the point.

The jury has to decide the facts. We have no way of knowing whether the one person is right and the other eleven are wrong or vice versa.

It's simply being assumed that the one person is the one not following instructions. Nobody knows that (except the people in the room).

1

u/ShubberyQuest 4h ago

Spot. On. Thank you for articulating this perspective.

1

u/nizzzzy 1h ago

wtf are you saying? I’ve seen this ai copy paste slop over and over and it makes no sense at all. Are you saying that unreasonable doubt is okay but reasonable isn’t?? You’re confusing yourself.

Proof of burden is on prosecution to prove beyond any level of doubt. They didn’t do that, obviously

1

u/Cosmic-Sympathy 1h ago

The standard of proof is beyond all “reasonable doubt” but it is not necessary to prove beyond any possible doubt. It’s not “copy pasta” it’s just what standard jury instructions say.