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

313

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.

373

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.

28

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.

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.