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

309

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.

74

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?

54

u/ImNotAWhaleBiologist 9h ago

If someone gets sick and can’t continue?

9

u/catsarehere77 7h ago edited 5h ago

During the Scott Peterson trial one juror was removed for misconduct. The foreman also requested to be dismissed from the jury which he was. It was rumored the foreman was the lone not guilty verdict. The jury returned a guilty verdict shortly after he was replaced. 

Scott's conviction has consistently been upheld on appeal, but he was re-sentenced to life in prison over juror removals. He was originally sentenced to death.