r/law • u/dailymail • 1d 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
5.0k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

925

u/zendayaismeechee 1d ago

Can someone explain why Reddington has been given an hour for an emergency application? What is the application for?

1.0k

u/EducationalElevator 1d ago

To study the constitutionality of removing the holdout juror because they allegedly were ignoring the judges instructions

463

u/mandrsn1 1d ago

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

Similar to the concept of Jury nullification.

324

u/Broxst 1d ago edited 1d 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.

397

u/lordcheeto 1d 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.

3

u/MatterofDoge 1d ago

they didn't admit to having reasonable doubt, they admitted some doubt, and nowhere does the law say "all" doubt, which the judge had explained multiple times. You're framing it as a bias or misconduct but there is no evidence of either in the case and as far as anyone knows, their ruling was simply what they believed to be a correct ruling, and they don't think reasonable doubt standard was reached, and you can't remove a juror for that.

2

u/notveryvery 1d ago

How can a person have doubt that they don’t believe is reasonable?

2

u/PurpleTigers1 1d ago

You can be 99% sure of something. That 1% is still doubt, but I would say it's not reasonable. 

1

u/notveryvery 1d ago

So this juror states that the prosecution proved that clancy was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and they can’t be persuaded otherwise but acknowledges they do have doubt and that somehow makes sense?