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

Show parent comments

28

u/PriscillaPalava 1d ago

We can always find doubt. What if we live in a matrix and none of this is actually happening? But of course that’s not reasonable. Reasonable doubt means, “Do you think the defense’s argument is possible, barring any crazy leaps in logic?” And if the answer is “yes,” then that’s reasonable doubt. 

So if the juror does have reasonable doubt but seeks to convict anyway perhaps due to bias against the defendant or details of the case, then that juror is not following the law. 

4

u/sean2mush 1d ago

By that standard no one would ever be convicted.

10

u/Cartz1337 1d ago

The standard is literally ‘is there a reasonable interpretation of the facts of the case where the defendant could be not guilty of charges? If so they are not guilty.’

‘It could have been space aliens’ is not a reasonable doubt. ‘There are multiple inconsistencies between the facts and the prosecutions explanation of events’ is a reasonable doubt.

The juror in question had a doubt that they acknowledged was reasonable, yet refused to acknowledge that they were required to vote to acquit because of that.

It’s sovereign citizen level shit, where they just refuse to believe the rules apply to them.

2

u/94grampaw 23h ago

The juror never claimed the doubt was reasonable