r/law • u/bendubberley_ • 15h ago

Legal News The judge in the Lindsay Clancy case is admonishing jurors who are refusing to follow his instructions

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

10.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.2k

u/kakashi_sensay 15h ago

Looks like all but one want to give a not guilty verdict.

1.7k

u/secondsbest 14h ago

Not guilty by reason of insanity most likely based on this. One juror is holding out on a guilty verdict or the judge wouldn't be harping on how the state has to go so far to win that charge.

726

u/KCDeVoe 13h ago

He also harps on what’s “reasonable” and only the facts presented 

I was on jury duty once where jurors where talking about very unreasonable doubt, and “what-ifs” that weren’t part of the defense or evidence 

460

u/HorrorGrapefruit9389 13h ago

I was on one where a woman said “I know the evidence says not guilty, but I believe he’s guilty.”

196

u/Grizzly_Berry 12h ago

I was on one (civil case, person v county) and there was a mix of "I think he deserves the money because the county can spare it," "I have done business with the county and they were a pain in the ass, so they should pay up," and "I will switch my verdict if it means I get to go home."

215

u/GirlNextor123 12h ago

This. I was so excited to serve on a jury, and when we finally got to deliberations I was stunned by the dumb and completely irrelevant arguments that fellow jurors were making.

216

u/thakemist 11h ago

This is the issue with a jury of your peers. Most of our peers are idiots

97

u/StockQuahog 10h ago

Same problem voting

3

u/Freakn_Deadpool 5h ago

Once again, lack of resources in public education shows it’s true colors. Wish we cared about it as much as COMMUNIST China does

2

u/Lobenz 5h ago

George Carlin was referring to voters as well as jurors.

→ More replies (3)

33

u/Torgud_ 10h ago

The median American can't even read at a 12th grade level. They're barely literate morons.

2

u/sumptin_wierd 6h ago

yeah but we got one over on the commies or something amiright

9

u/MortgageRegular2509 9h ago

Three scariest words in the English language are “trial by jury”

2

u/diggitydonegone 5h ago

Most high functioning people have jobs that often disqualify them from making it through voir dire. And many more people move heaven and earth not to be selected. So, often a jury of our peers is not a good cross section of society.

Depending on the type of charge against me, I would potentially choose a no jury trial.

→ More replies (7)

43

u/RRZ006 11h ago

The average person isn’t very bright or well read/educated and I have to assume juries skew downwards to some degree.

15

u/The_Void_calls_me 10h ago

I mean there's a whole joke in that regard that juries are made up of people too stupid to get out of jury duty

→ More replies (3)

3

u/Placesbetween86 10h ago

I hate to break it to you, but they actually don't. Juries are typically older and have higher income and education than the average American. Childcare is frequently claimed as a hardship that keeps people from serving. People whose kids are already adults but still healthy enough not to have a lot of health issues (40-60 range) are the most represented in our juries.

27

u/mantis_tobaggan-md 11h ago

A jury of our “peers” in America is a fucking scary thought.

24

u/slptodrm 11h ago

it pains me that this is supposedly the best system we can come up with, and we put innocent peoples' lives at their whim.

14

u/haskell_rules 10h ago

The good news is that we have studied psychological manipulation of the weak-minded so thoroughly that if you spend enough money on a talented lawyer you can convince a below average intelligence person of almost anything.

8

u/Dustin- 9h ago

You might even convince people that it's only weak-minded, below average intelligence people that can be convinced of almost anything instead of even quite intelligent people.

2

u/BeakyDoctor 11h ago

There are definitely better systems out there, the US just won’t switch to them.

At least jury nullification has been used to good effect the past couple of years

2

u/RedYellowHoney 10h ago

What is juror nullification, exactly? Sorry – legal dunce here. I come here to learn.

5

u/Stewart_Games 10h ago

You can rule not guilty if you perceive the law itself to be unfair. So like a flock camera vandalism case where even if it was technically destruction of property, the property itself violates personal freedom and privacy so you can rule "not guilty" as a way to argue against the legality of surveillance.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)

9

u/burlycabin 10h ago

The only time I got to serve on a jury, it was actually a really good experience. It was a civil disobedience case and everyone on the jury took it very seriously and we all got along great. I'm sorry your experience was different.

5

u/Eric_Senpai 9h ago

The jury I served in Massachusetts was ALL white people with bachelor's, masters, and phds. I was a college student, was really hoping they'd take me out if the pool for being Asian but I guess I was the wildcard. It was a lot of smart deliberation about facts pertaining to the alleged crime and evidence.

3

u/bkgn 7h ago

I was on a jury for a clear-cut case of stranger rape, and the old women on the jury were blaming the victim for being raped in her sleep by a complete stranger. Trying to say she led the rapist on somehow. Thankfully them being so dumb also made them fairly easy to persuade.

2

u/Practical-Positive34 11h ago

Yeah reality smacks you in the face real quick sometimes huh? I always make up weird ass medical reasons to get out of that selection process. No fucking thanks!

2

u/Prior_Pickle1758 11h ago

bro we need you on the jury lmao

3

u/Beaglescout15 7h ago

Yeah when I was put into the courtroom for jury questions I thought about how I could get out of it, but then I thought that as a reasonably intelligent person, I would want me on my jury.

2

u/Working-Glass6136 8h ago

I had the same exact experience. Served once, and I was excited to be educated (not to mention I was working minimum wage, so I wasn't missing much). All to realize that one person can basically control the whole thing and everyone else just wants to go home.

→ More replies (1)

24

u/Thewal 12h ago

I'm pretty sure that last one ends up being the solution to most hung juries.

28

u/FishfortheElectorate 11h ago

The last jury I was on had nine people saying guilty and three saying not guilty. After all the back and forths about the evidence, it seemed like we weren’t going to come to a decision.

Then one of the people who was saying guilty basically said that he was never changing his mind, and then two more said the same.

Then one of the not guilty voters said he didn’t feel strongly enough to keep everyone there all night and changed his vote to guilty. The two remaining not guilty votes immediately followed suit, and we were out of there within about twenty minutes.

72

u/Ok-Selection2208 11h ago

That seems like a failure of the justice system. People who will decide the fate of someone’s life based on whether they want to go home early are lazy and don’t deserve to be a part of society.

19

u/Marcus_Aurelius71 11h ago

I think a big improvement would be to allow for hung juries. Basically unanimity is needed for the guilty verdict, if there is a hung jury then its acquittal. Makes sense from the perspective you are innocent until proven guilty. If you can't be proven guilty, then by the eyes of the law you are still innocent.

14

u/TerribleBudget 8h ago

Have you met some of the jurors? Some people get off on the idea that they can hold power over 11 other people just by saying something contrary.

6

u/Substantial_Dish_887 9h ago

so you only need to convince 1 person on a jury to be innocent but the entire jury for guilty?

and you don't see problem with that idea?

then again jury trials in general just seem like a bad idea when you begin to actually disect them.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/rand0m_task 11h ago

As much as I emotionally hate this idea.. you are 100% correct.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

2

u/Prior_Pickle1758 11h ago

which one was you

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Automatic-Cut-5567 8h ago

It's crazy reading yalls stories. I was on jury duty for a case of self-defense. Lady shot her BF a couple hours after he beat her black n blue(not the first time). Despite a bunch of people getting booted for bias, all of us that got picked went 'not guilty' without much debate. There was even one chick who had that karen-y works for your HOA vibe, and she agreed too.

→ More replies (1)

77

u/VibeComplex 12h ago

What do you do in that situation if it affects the judgement? Tell the judge?

177

u/HorrorGrapefruit9389 12h ago

We spoke to the judge, who very concisely explained all that mattered was evidence, after that and a few hours of convincing we got her to change her mind.

91

u/Zombatico 12h ago

Jesus christ. She already admitted "the evidence says not quilty" and it took HOURS to convince her to change her vote.

Some people fundamentally do not give a shit about reality or facts or truth. It's all feels and beliefs for them. Magical religious faith-based type of thinking.

8

u/TheNatural14063 11h ago

Another reason out of many why we should well paid and well educated (trained in law) professional juries selected from a wide variety of races, nationalities, class backgrounds, ages, etc with an even amount of men and women.

22

u/Dramatic-Tackle5159 11h ago

Oh yeah, professional juries.

No way that could possibly end poorly lmao

→ More replies (4)

2

u/AdminsFluffCucks 11h ago

Prosecutors would never allow for that.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (7)

56

u/PrussiaK89 12h ago

Is your name Juror #8?

29

u/AriaTheTransgressor 11h ago

That's such a Juror #3 thing to say.

5

u/Varron 11h ago

Woah Juror #2, not cool at all

→ More replies (3)

5

u/ScreamingVoid14 11h ago

If #12 would stop chewing gum so loudly, maybe we could focus on getting out of this room.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/lahimatoa 11h ago

Jesus fuck some people are very stupid.

2

u/rbobby 12h ago

And this judge specifically said "to a moral certainty" and defined it. That juror's 'I just know it' doesn't survive that test.

I've heard these sorts of instructions to juries a couple of times and this one seems on par. And the judge did not seemed put out at all by this... an honest attempt to help the jury do its job.

→ More replies (1)

33

u/TehSeksyManz 12h ago

Could someone have gotten her kicked off of the jury somehow? Clearly she wasn't a reasonable person. 

36

u/Not-your-lawyer- 12h ago edited 12h ago

Yes.

Jurors can weight the evidence however they please [[e.g., "I think all fifteen eyewitnesses are lying, but the defendant seemed believable"]], but when they're sworn in they agree to faithfully apply that evidence to the instructions provided by the judge. They can be removed if the judge finds out they're not.

BUT the judge can only find out if other jurors report them. And even then the first remedy is just warning the person and admonishing them to follow the rules. If they keep it up, they get removed.

If no one reports anything, you get a hung jury.

If all the jurors end up agreeing with them, you get a conviction or an acquittal.

20

u/bonecheck12 12h ago

It depends on what they say as well. The other jurors can't just report to the judge "they're being unreasonable" and then the judge kicks them out. They have to say something like "he's guilty because he's black" or something crazy like that. Otherwise you'd have judges kicking out all sorts of jurors just based on the fact that it's 8-1 in the jury votes and nobody wants that.

2

u/RedYellowHoney 10h ago

Hence the judge in the Clancy trial refusing the defense's request to dismiss that one juror.

9

u/panhellenic 10h ago

if you've ever served on a jury, then you know the system gives them the utmost deferential treatment. I think a lot of people are intimidated by a judge and so don't want to speak up when things get hinky in the jury room. The judge really does want fairness (obvy there are some exceptions) and they *really* don't want a case overturned bc of some juror behavior they didn't know about at the time but could have nipped it in the bud had they known.

I've been in the position of having to tell the judge about something a juror did, and I spoke to her clerk, not the judge herself, so no black robe anxiety. She thanked me and said the judge really did need to know about the behavior (which ended up causing a mistrial).

9

u/hodorhodor12 11h ago

I know there's no perfect system, but a system that allows for blatant such stupidity to land someone in prison for life can't be the best system.

2

u/SaltMage5864 11h ago

I was on one where a couple of people said he must be guilty because nobody is that stupid. Not a claim anyone could make today

2

u/YouGlittering9156 5h ago

That's insane...

I think the important thing he harps on is "I've told you that every person is presumed to be innocent until they are proved guilty, and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor..."

Just like in your situation, the woman needed to listen to that advice.

→ More replies (12)

181

u/Equivalent_One5900 13h ago edited 12h ago

I’ve been a juror for a murder trial and had the same shit going on in the jury room where people were coming up with theories and im like look our job is not to prosecute or defend we are here to hear the facts given—if the prosecution didn’t do a good job of that that’s not our fault. We shouldn’t have to piece it together ourselves.

25

u/strychnineman 10h ago

Exactly this.

The jury doesn’t decide if they think someone is guilty. They determine if the prosecution proved they were.

It’s maddening to try to explain this to people who say “but I think…”. Nope. You don’t get to fill in gaps and guess. The question is: Did. The. State. Prove. Their. Case.

6

u/GrassyNoob 9h ago

The question is: Did. The. State. Prove. Their. Case.

"But I think the law is wrong." Trumps that sentence.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Lepelotonfromager 4h ago

Although I'd argue the opposite is partially true, if you feel as the jury the defense did a poor job of making their arguments and presenting the evidence and you genuinely feel like there might be some innocence you should be willing to posit some theoriest the defence didn't. Ultimately the jury are the last line of ensuring justice and also preventing injustice.

There are some cases where it seems like the judge, prosecutor and defense just don't give a shit and people get railroaded because they've got a backlog of cases.

→ More replies (14)

16

u/nyglthrnbrry 12h ago

I always thought jury duty could be annoying, but you'r comment made me realize it could easily be my own personal hell

2

u/a_piginacage 12h ago

Was for me. Very eye opening though.

→ More replies (1)

39

u/Rockergage 13h ago

Fuck I did a mock jury about eminent domain acquisition final evaluation and we were trying to determine, “how much should this group get for their land.” I had one woman who said, “what about the mineral rights- (long uninteresting spiel about friend getting screwed about it)” and I had to restrain myself and try to be nice when I explained “if there was valuable minerals under this shitty church it still wouldn’t matter because the land isn’t zoned industrial mining.” Which was never brought up and shouldn’t be considered.

3

u/man_eating_mt_rat 11h ago

But jurors can have a moral objection to the law itself and vote based on that. But our so called justice system isn't real loud about that.

→ More replies (3)

97

u/Odd_Ninja5801 13h ago

I was on a jury once where some of the jurors ignored the fact that the defendant was guilty based purely on their own testimony during the trial. But because they didn't trust the evidence of the victims, they refused to find them guilty.

Mind boggling.

41

u/Coolgrnmen 12h ago

It’s better to let a guilty person go free than imprison an innocent person.

63

u/el-mago2 13h ago

Have you never heard of faulty self incrimination? There are loads of cases of people admitting to crimes they didnt commit. Admission of guilt cannot be used alone as evidence of a crime

23

u/jonniezombie 13h ago

He is saying the opposite of that. The jury believed the person on trial, when they gave witness testimony that they didn’t do it. They believed this more than the evidence against them.

11

u/gh0stwriter1234 12h ago

Depends on what the evidence is... if its merely circumstantial evidence that might not be enough. Because it comes down their word vs the other person's.

I know someone that nullified a drug charges case, because they could not prove the person had put them shrooms in their backpack themselves and it wasn't just stashed there during a party by someone else.

There was no video of them putting the shrooms in there or having them in their possession only they were found in their backpack which was not with them at the time. Basically there was not 100% certainty that they put them there.

32

u/Odd_Ninja5801 13h ago

Can't really go into details too much. Suffice to say, one of the victims said they did x and y, and the defendant basically admitted that they did x and y. There was physical evidence to support it as well. Only x and y was needed for a conviction, but there was also evidence they did a, b, c, d and e as well. They didn't admit to any of the rest.

Jurors ignored that x and y was enough to convict, because they didn't believe the victims about a, b, c, d and e.

2

u/UncleBlanc 12h ago

What was the outcome? Did you follow or did they switch?

→ More replies (7)

6

u/triangle60 13h ago

Please tell me where in the rules of evidence or under what case it says that a person's testimony by itself can't be used alone as evidence of a crime.

12

u/grap112ler 12h ago

When the testimony is made under duress or torture. Also if that person is clinically insane or developmentally disabled, etc etc.

2

u/Loud-Competition6995 12h ago

You forget the third equally likely option, the defendant is an idiot and misunderstands that their actions don’t actually meet the definition of the crime they’re accused of.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Immediate_Gain_9480 11h ago edited 11h ago

Unus testis, nullus testis. Its a rather old legal rule from roman law that i think is abolished in most of the US if it ever applied. But is still used in a few countries. I think thats were the confusion is from.

3

u/Legal-Literature-696 12h ago

It’s called prima facia evidence. In order to go forward with a charge against a defendant there must be prima facia evidence that the defendant committed the crime without the defendant’s admissions used to establish that fact. This is a motion brought before trial commences. NYL and not giving legal advice.

3

u/piscina_de_la_muerte 12h ago

To add on to this, as an example, consider if someone walks into a police station and admits to killing John Doe. Without police establishing that John Doe exists, and is in fact dead, how could you charge the person who confessed to the "killing".

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/sundalius 12h ago

Well yeah. That’s the point of juries. To determine credibility and weigh evidence to determine what the facts will be.

→ More replies (3)

7

u/datagamma 12h ago

Frustrating. People are severely under education or aware of reason. The world must be a truly baffling place to these people. No wonder conspiracy theories abound.

We all use heuristics and bias or prejudice in our day to day. It’s shocking though when I see people being reasoned with who will not budge from unreasonable positions without a second thought and willful ignorance of data and evidence. Feelings and authority are far more compelling to people unfamiliar with critical thinking and rational argument.

Being stubborn and unreasonable used to be negative personality traits. The most belligerent of us have convinced themselves they are virtues.

3

u/Big-Constant-7289 11h ago

Ugh I was a juror on an alleged drunk driving trial and one of the jurors had a kid who just got their license and she would not let it go.  OH BUT IF MY BABY WAS ON THE ROAD? NO I KNOW BUT WHAT IF…. jfc we were all so mad at her. 

3

u/rand0m_task 11h ago

I was on the grand jury and people were thinking we were sending these people straight to jail and not to trial.

It was awful.

I rather be judged by the judge than a jury of my peers after that experience.

5

u/BleachedUnicornBHole 12h ago

I’m kind of wondering if one of the jurors went down a TikTok rabbit hole of conspiracies for this trial.

2

u/Gryzzlee 10h ago

It's weird that in this case the prosecution has to prove someone was sane and not the other way around with the defense proving they were insane.

Hard to prove something that none of her providers thought she was suffering from. And she refused to be an inpatient/outpatient to help specialists confirm if she did or didn't.

Why does the prosecution need to prove sanity in this case? It's weird as heck.

→ More replies (17)

169

u/kakashi_sensay 14h ago

That’s what it’s looking like.

→ More replies (1)

66

u/Fun-Distribution4776 13h ago

I would not read tea leaves here. He has to remind jurors who has the burden

31

u/JackTwoGuns 13h ago

It’s the defense that’s pushing to kick out the juror so it definitely feels like it’s 11-1 not guilty

51

u/Fun-Distribution4776 13h ago

The defense is is making a show and motions to preserve appeal issues. No one knows which side the 11-1 split is on

9

u/MilesFromTeg 11h ago

Sure but the show part is completely unnecessary for an appeal. While the defense may not know how the 11-1 are split, he must feel very strongly it is 11 to 1 positive to the defense goals. If he felt the holdout was the one in his favor, it is incredibly risky to take that person off. In that instance, a mistrial is a great outcome for the defense; and he would have asked for a mistrial to preserve that appellate issue.

1

u/Fun-Distribution4776 10h ago

He knows the judge isn’t going to take the person off; no judge is going to do that without clear evidence that the juror is engaged in improper behavior.

The show part is to make a show to the judge, and to then public. He knows if there’s a mistrial then there can be a future trial: it’s good for the defendant to shape public opinion. And it’s worked: everyone thinks the jury is on the cusp of a NG verdict, when in fact we have no idea

2

u/MilesFromTeg 6h ago

He didnt ask for a mistrial. If he thought there was any reasonable chance it was 11-1 guilty, he would have 100p done so

→ More replies (3)

22

u/RelationshipShort460 13h ago

it could be 11-1 for murder 2, or 11-1 for manslaughter instead of murder 1. there are a lot of possibilities here, beyond not guilty.

3

u/BoleroMuyPicante 9h ago

That's so much of why there's a deadlock, there's five different verdicts to choose from and you have to get 12 to agree on one.

2

u/RedYellowHoney 10h ago

Yes. And the defense lawyer making the statement that he kicked the prosecution's ass. He's quite the character.

4

u/lahimatoa 11h ago

It's weird to me people aren't saying the full thing: "not guilty by reason of insanity".

Not simply "not guilty". She did it, we know.

2

u/DynamicImpulses 8h ago

To be fair, “Not Guilty” (that is, full acquittal) is a verdict option for the jury here, notwithstanding the fact that neither side disputes she did it. That said, it’s highly unlikely that 11 jurors would go full social media rabbit hole. Much more likely it’s the “Not Guilty by Lack of Criminal Responsibility”.

2

u/Gloomy_Fig2138 9h ago

It’s because both TikTok astrology weirdos and manosphere weirdos are heavily invested in this case. The TikTok astrology weirdos are somehow convinced that her husband did it and is framing her, and the manosphere weirdos are convinced that she’s faking her entire mental health history and planned this all as a long con.

3

u/Different_Bridge_983 10h ago

Right.

Hypothetically if he a judge believes the defendant is guilty the absolute last thing they’d want to do is even vaguely appear to be steering a jury towards a conviction on anything remotely less than a standard of reasonable doubt, because that’s gonna go straight to an appeal.

2

u/AutisticPenguin2 12h ago

I would kind of hope the judge had basically a default statement that he could read out that wasn't clearly pushing the jurors one way or the other. There's a reason he is not part of the jury.

→ More replies (3)

7

u/Defiant-Power2447 12h ago

lol - the judge literally read model instructions.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Dull_Bid6002 11h ago

I don't think it's a signal either way. I can imagine someone who decided guilty while the rest are not-guilty by reason of insanity. I can also imagine someone saying not guilty but deciding she just didn't do it because there could have been all these other things that happened.

→ More replies (99)

255

u/Detachabl_e 14h ago

Reverse 12 Angry Men.

98

u/DiscussionIll668 14h ago

12 happy men?

87

u/CobaltCaterpillar 14h ago

In 12 Angry Men, it's eleven jurors going for a conviction and one lone juror saying he's not so sure yet and that they need to review the case again.

79

u/Alfred_The_Sartan 13h ago

That story still holds up so well. Every juror has a personality and an angle. Just masterclass writing IMO

56

u/Bongoisnthere 13h ago

Reese Witherspoon was made foreman of her Jury because other jurors thought she had gone to lawschool for legally blonde.

12 angry men massively overestimates the jurors in that movie. The trial in idiocracy is significantly more realistic

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/GrandFloor6202 13h ago

Happy women perhaps

→ More replies (4)

26

u/ReptilianWorldOrder 13h ago

Close.

10

u/Rowing_Lawyer 13h ago

Holy shit, I remember seeing this at the video store back in the day and just being so confused

4

u/mps2000 12h ago

I watch this once a week! Penis Penis Penis!

2

u/mofugginrob 6h ago

Asbestos!

2

u/scared_and_afrayed 7h ago

12 retarded women

well, almost

6

u/Responsible_Mix4717 14h ago

12 HORNY Men?!?!?!

→ More replies (9)

111

u/nascent_aviator 13h ago

We don't know that. The admonition given here could cut both ways. He specifically mentions that reasonable doubt is not beyond all doubt.

In any case judges are forbidden from asking jurors in the minority to reconsider towards the majority without asking the majority to reconsider towards the minority. It's not the judge's job to lean on one side or the other.

There's no indication as far as I can tell that even the judge knows what the actual split is. There's something about the foreperson saying that one of the juror's is not following the judge's directions, which hints towards 11-1, but even if that's true we still don't know to which side.

→ More replies (17)

77

u/Bobsothethird 13h ago

Eh, that's what the defense is trying to imply, but they are also trying to play the game. The Defensive team has actually done a wonderful job regardless of what I, or anyone, believes in both the public and court itself. They are really making the prosecutors look stupid. Reminds me very much of the Rittenhouse case and how bad the prosecutor looked there.

25

u/kakashi_sensay 13h ago

Yeah the prosecution has been pretty weak this whole trial imo. I am impartial to this case, but Reddington has done a great job.

24

u/Bobsothethird 13h ago

They've just been so unprepared, it's kind of ridiculous. I honestly think she's guilty based of what the court requires (I.E. she almost certainly experienced pyschosis but still had the capacity to know the act was wrong), but if I was in the jury, from what I was presented, I don't think I could say guilty while following the courts rules.

The defense has done a really good job of calling out witnesses while not appear overly belligerent as well. He walked a fine line.

19

u/kakashi_sensay 13h ago

He stayed consistent throughout while the prosecution did not. It was such a mess. We’ll see how this turns out tomorrow!

2

u/panhellenic 10h ago

Yep it's challenging to be on a jury and think yeah they likely did it...BUT the evidence in the courtroom, which is what I'm limited to consider, doesn't prove it to the standard required (there is reasonable doubt, based solely on the facts in the trial). It's doubly challenging when everyone on the jury has some basic questions about the case that were never asked by either side.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)

12

u/Traditional_Kick_887 12h ago

There have been cases where all but one juror wanted to give a guilty verdict as well.

One cannot assume the one dissenter is certainly in the wrong, especially considering trials where all 12 jurors have found a defendant wrongfully guilty or wrongfully not guilty.

Part of the challenge is that many jurors will also side with the majority to finally get out of jury duty and return to their jobs, even if they themselves disagree with the majority

1

u/kakashi_sensay 12h ago

Given Reddington and the prosecution’s response/reaction, that’s what led me to believe it was the majority siding with not guilty. I personally don’t care either way but that was my assessment along with other trial and criminal attorneys I have seen discussing this case.

→ More replies (2)

98

u/Desperate_Cress_2449 14h ago

What is your source of that information? The jurors are still anonymous to the public at this point and no legitimate sources are confirming their split.

209

u/yagirlsophie 14h ago

It comes from a statement from the defense's lawyer, he stated that one juror was refusing to follow the law and requested they be removed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/03/us/lindsay-clancy-trial-holdout-juror.html

61

u/vulkur 14h ago

Does the defense get know the current vote for guilty/not guilty? Or just the split numerically?

If he just knows there is a split with 1vs11. Then it could be he is just annoyed that it's taking too long?

84

u/AndThisGuyPeedOnIt 14h ago

All he knows is there is a split. That's it. He is guessing that because it has taken so long, it is more likely that the hold out is against him, which is a reasonable guess, but that's all it is.

47

u/boxesofcats- 13h ago

He told media that it came from a note from the jurors:

“Well, when a note that the judge already has says that there are 11 jurors that have made a decision and one juror will not apply reasonable doubt, I think that tells you where they’re at,”

47

u/cbs-anonmouse 13h ago

That note does make it seem like the holdout is against aquittal.

Of course, the jury note itself is wrong — just because one juror has a different opinion than the others doesn’t itself mean that juror misunderstands the concept of reasonable doubt. He or she just may have a different opinion about whether it is met in the case.

30

u/NecessaryClothes9076 13h ago

Hell, it very well could be that the other 11 misunderstand the "reasonable" part of reasonable doubt and ignored the part of the instruction that says "reasonable doubt does not mean any doubt." It's isn't at all uncommon for people to think that if they have any doubt whatsoever, or if there are some far fetched what ifs, that they should acquit.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Tardisgoesfast 11h ago

But through discussion it may have become clear that this juror doesn’t understand reasonable doubt.

6

u/HailMadScience 13h ago

True, but if they used that wording, its possible the juror outright said something indicating that they didn't care about the standard. Which is something they should have noted.

2

u/hurler_jones 11h ago edited 11h ago

Is the note publicly available?

Edit: I found this blurb in a CNN article:

The jury note indicated they are split 11 to 1, and one juror “refuses to listen to the law” on reasonable doubt, according to Reddington. He objected to the judge’s re-reading of the instructions, requested more in-depth questioning of the jurors and asked the judge to remove that holdout juror.

The prosecution, though, agreed with the judge’s decision and said there was no way to determine what was going on in deliberations and who was correct or incorrect on the law. https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/03/us/live-news/lindsay-clancy-trial

That description is very ambiguous but note that the defense attorney reportedly OBJECTED while the prosecution was fine with the re-reading of instructions. I can just as easily see someone holding out not guilty by applying "reasonable doubt" incorrectly. But also note the prosecution mentioned there was no way to determine what was going on in deliberations. So I am back to who the fuck knows - could be either way unless that note is public.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

32

u/unicornofdemocracy 13h ago

He probably wants to avoid a redo at all cost (though he will probably make way more money with a redo). He did a great job while the prosecutors had some fuck ups. So a redo, will give space for the prosecutors to improve their case while the defense doesn't have much room to improve. So, redo puts him in a big disadvantage.

17

u/ZigZagZedZod 13h ago

But it still improves the defense's position, since they know the evidence the prosecution introduced, the prosecutors' logic and reasoning, and where the prosecutors underperformed.

Any defense attorney worth their salt will use that knowledge to further shore up their arguments.

8

u/Glum_Target2860 12h ago

Generally, mistrials favor the defense.

6

u/hesh582 9h ago

since they know the evidence the prosecution introduced, the prosecutors' logic and reasoning

They knew this before the trial anyway, for the most part.

Fiction has given people some really silly ideas about how trials work. Both sides know exactly what evidence is going to be used long before they ever set foot in court, and for the most part the same goes for legal arguments. We do not conduct trials by ambush or surprise flourish. Everyone gets time to prepare and needs to know what to prepare for.

The defense attorney learned almost nothing about what the prosecutors planned to do through the course of the trial.

2

u/Fit-Insect-4089 13h ago

You’re giving “Just keep trying the case until we get the ruling we want” vibes

3

u/Glum_Class_9578 10h ago

A mistrial should lead to a redo here, 3 kids are dead regardless of how you feel about the defendant and her culpability. Just leaving the case without a conclusion shouldn’t be an option when there’s no question about the actions that led to their deaths.

16

u/Iheardyoubutsowhat 13h ago

In this case, it appears the judge told him. Before this happened, the defense got real animated and was slamming papers down. He clearly thinks this should be a mistrial at this point. The judge called up Clancy even to explain where theyre at.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

20

u/CaptZurg 14h ago

But how does the defense know the vote split? That sounds sketchy as hell.

38

u/bl1y 13h ago

It was reported by the foreman of the jury.

If someone is not following the jury instructions, they can be reported to the judge. And, as we just saw, the judge reminds them of the instructions. If they continue to not follow the instructions, it's possible to have them removed and replaced with one of the alternates.

Note that this is different from jurors simply having a good faith disagreement about the facts. Not following the instructions would be something like a juror saying "I have my doubts, but I don't want her to go free because that would tell moms it's okay to kill their kids."

36

u/terrymr 13h ago

Because the jury would have had to tell the judge. The judge can’t speak to the jury without the lawyers present.

17

u/Dazzling_Vanilla3082 13h ago

Because if the voted wasn't split, they'd have a verdict already lol.

12

u/CaptZurg 13h ago

No, I am talking about the number, like 11-1

9

u/Twitter_Gate 13h ago

The judge knows he polled the jury and thats where its coming from both attorneys know its an 11-1 split but no one knows the nature of the split

3

u/RpmJ4ck 12h ago

Must be something new because in 37 years of practice I never heard of polling the jurors before a verdict. Frustration can’t drive procedure.

3

u/Twitter_Gate 12h ago

WCVB reported that he had a one on one side bar with each Juror. Then the attorneys, obviously we don't know the exact nature of the conversation but immediately after the defense attorney said there was one hold out and moved to dismiss that juror so it would be safe to assume that juror is holding out for guilty.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

6

u/Continuum_Gaming 14h ago

Do you have a link without a paywall?

65

u/sangreal06 14h ago

I could gift it, but the relevant part is:

Ms. Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, stood at the court’s lectern after and said the court should eject one juror.

“The court has an instruction from the foreperson of that jury that’s been working for a week now, saying that there’s one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you’ve given him or her on reasonable doubt,” Mr. Reddington said.

He said it would be “a real shame” if there were a mistrial because a juror “spurned the instructions of this court.”

A prosecutor, Jennifer Sprague, said that asking each juror individually if he or she could follow the law was appropriate and that there was “no way to determine what the deliberations are.”

Judge Sullivan said he didn’t want to side with “one juror or 11.”

9

u/MonkeyMan18975 14h ago

saying that there’s one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you’ve given him or her on reasonable doubt

Forget about this case, my question had nothing to do with this trial, but rather how someone's thought process can be measured. Hypothetically, is "listening to the law" in the context of a jury trial quantifiable? I mean, how can you prove if someone does or doesn't believe there's a reasonable doubt from the evidence they've been given.

Once again, I'm not referring to this specific case. I'm just wondering if I make a decision of guilty or not based on the evidence I've seen, how can I be proven to be no listening to the law?

I am confuse. This sounds like they're going after someone because of the outcome of their decision and not in how they got there since I don't believe that's provable.

18

u/Top_Mathematician233 13h ago

I was on a civil trial jury once with a guy who said, “I don’t think he did it, but I feel like we should give her something” meaning that he did not believe the defendant did what was accused but felt like a little bit of money should be awarded anyway. It took a few hours to convince him that’s not how it works. We came back with a “not guilty” or whatever you call it in that situation. “Not responsible”? I can’t remember at this point.

43

u/FUS_RO_DANK 13h ago

From lawyers i've talked to they say it's surprising how often a juror will say something like "I don't care what the law says, that bitch belongs in jail!" The statement itself is that they are knowingly flaunting the law to go with their feelings. I made instructional jury duty videos before and it was part of our planning, how difficult the average person can be about serving on a jury.

8

u/burnmp3s 13h ago

The jurors are supposed to take just the facts and evidence of the case that have been presented and apply the law to those facts exactly how the jury instructions tell them to do it. The deliberation is supposed to be around discussing the evidence, the rules, the laws, etc.

It's possible that someone can feel very strongly about the outcome of the verdict and act in ways that are not allowed by those rules and laws, which jurors are not supposed to do. Take a case where the defendant is someone who has cheaten on and beaten their spouse and then lied about it, but the actual crime being tried is about whether they planned and murdered their spouse's brother. Someone in the jury could say that they don't want to find the person not guilty just because they are a bad person who admitted doing various bad things and they belong in prison. That juror by admitting their reasoning for wanting to choose guilty is admitting that they are not actually following the rules or using the evidence presented in the case to make their decision.

4

u/ProcessNumerous6688 13h ago

Perhaps in their deliberations the juror(s) acknowledged having a doubt about a particular thing that in the mind of the foreperson would logically lead to reaonable doubt of guilt. For example, "I'm 99% certain she knew it was illegal to kill her kids when she did it, but I cant be 100% sure because I can't see inside her mind"

3

u/friend_jp 11h ago

It could be based on discussions during deliberations. The foreperson sent a note to the judge saying “hey this one person isn’t following the law or your instructions.” The jury foreperson would only know what the lone hold out was thinking by discussing it with them in the deliberation room.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/jm0112358 13h ago

A prosecutor, Jennifer Sprague, said that asking each juror individually if he or she could follow the law was appropriate and that there was “no way to determine what the deliberations are.”

The problem is that people would rarely say, "I can't/won't follow the law".

→ More replies (1)

34

u/yagirlsophie 14h ago

Oh my bad, yeah try this snapshot: https://archive.ph/hzF9z

There appears to be an 11-1 split among jurors who are amid a sixth day of deliberations in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy.

On Thursday, after a heated sidebar, the judge, William Sullivan, questioned members of the jury under oath, one by one. They appeared to nod their heads affirmatively. He then called the jurors into the courtroom as a group, spoke to them about the legal definition of reasonable doubt, and then sent them off to continue their deliberations.

As the jury filed out, sighs and muttering filled the courtroom. The crowd had been tense as people in the gallery strained to catch the gestures of the lawyers speaking at the sidebar, their voices drowned out by white noise over the courtroom’s speakers.

Ms. Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, stood at the court’s lectern after and said the court should eject one juror.

“The court has an instruction from the foreperson of that jury that’s been working for a week now, saying that there’s one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you’ve given him or her on reasonable doubt,” Mr. Reddington said.

He said it would be “a real shame” if there were a mistrial because a juror “spurned the instructions of this court.”

A prosecutor, Jennifer Sprague, said that asking each juror individually if he or she could follow the law was appropriate and that there was “no way to determine what the deliberations are.”

Judge Sullivan said he didn’t want to side with “one juror or 11.”

As the crowd filed out, a woman with reddened eyes who had been watching from the back row dabbed away tears that were rolling down her face.

5

u/Redd11r 13h ago

A woman or a juror sitting in the back row? I’m assuming it’s a juror.

5

u/yagirlsophie 13h ago

From the article it sounded like the Jury had already filed out by that point so I don't think it was a juror, unless the article got chopped up in a weird way.

6

u/jm0112358 12h ago

“The court has an instruction from the foreperson of that jury that’s been working for a week now, saying that there’s one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you’ve given him or her on reasonable doubt,” Mr. Reddington said.

If true, it would be incredibly disappointing if the family had to testify again, more taxpayer dollars were spent, and the government gets an unfair additional "bite at the apple" all because someone refused to obey the law.

Of course, it's difficult to know for sure if a juror is actually disobeying the law. If someone doesn't reasonably doubt the defendant's guilt, and is being badgered for a week, it's possible for them to make statements that sound like they're just refusing to obey the law. It's also possible for someone to refuse to obey the law for emotional reasons, but when asked by the judge, claim, "Well yes, I can law the rules."

23

u/lesath_lestrange 14h ago

It says “Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, said in open court that the juror “refuses to listen to the law” about reasonable doubt.”

5

u/Difficult_Collar4336 13h ago

My understanding is that jurors are not required to follow the law (despite what this judge says) and are within their full rights to follow their conscious even if it contradicts the law. That’s the very basis of the concept of jury nullification, which is entirely legal.

13

u/bl1y 13h ago

They are not. Jurors are required to follow orders of the court, and that includes jury instructions. Jurors can be removed for not following the judge's instructions.

Jury nullification requires the juror to be unanimous, which means no one in the room is going to snitch that they weren't following the instructions. It's not so much that it's legal, but rather that there's no recourse.

7

u/lesath_lestrange 13h ago

They’re pretty close circumstances so I can see why anyone might have a bit of confusion about how they’re different.

Nullification presupposes that the jury understands what the law requires but still choose to acquit because they believe applying that law would be unjust. A juror who simply refuses to follow the judge’s instructions is refusing to apply the law as the judge has instructed rather than making a conscious decision to nullify it.

9

u/jm0112358 13h ago

Jurors are required to follow the law.

"Jury nullification" is not legal. It arises because, although jurors are required to follow the law, they cannot be punished for how they vote. So they can effectively get away with not following the law in the deliberation room, even though they're not allow to.

4

u/NOLA2Cincy 13h ago

I learned that when I served on a jury. You can actually declare someone not guilty just because you think the law is unfair.

This actually happened in our jury in a brutal murder case. There was no doubt about what happened since there was video of it. But the circumstances and subsequent actions of the accused created uncertainty. In the end, we convinced the hold out to convict on a less charge - involuntary manslaughter - and everyone went home.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/beren12 14h ago

Add blockers and reader mode usually work pretty well

→ More replies (13)

65

u/kakashi_sensay 14h ago

We don’t know for certain. But given the defense’s response and request to have the juror removed, that’s what it is looking like. I’m watching the trial live, are you?

4

u/Ok-Description7073 12h ago

You cannot read anything into that though? He has to preserve the record for appeal. This could just as easily be a juror not understanding “reasonable doubt” by giving that standard the weight of “beyond any semblance of doubt,” which is a frequent problem.

2

u/Mist_Rising 11h ago

But given the defense’s response

Not sure I would take the defense counsel as unbias here. They have a job and will spin hard to get it. But the truth is, they don't know either

→ More replies (76)

3

u/HigherandHigherDown 14h ago

Logic and intuition? Obviously no one knows for sure. It sounds about right to me.

5

u/Altruistic-Rice-5567 13h ago

How come through exactly this process.... If the defense is asking for an alternate then it's because the one wants to convict. And from the way the instructions were read "Not probable, just possible" is leading the juror to understand Just because *you* think it was probable [that she knowing murdered] them is not the standard, is it] possible [that she was insane is enough that it must be considered reasonable doubt].

Yeah, it's almost certainly one hold-out trying to convict.

2

u/Desperate_Cress_2449 13h ago

I have made zero claims about what I believe and for the sake of this sub and my own argument, i don’t believe it’s necessary. The original commenter made a baseless assumption, because this split can genuinely be applied for either verdict.

Calling a single juror out for not following the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” does not indicate one way or another, when that juror could be saying there IS proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or that there is an ABSENCE of a reasonable doubt. Either way, all we know is that they are *not applying the fundamental standard properly.*

The defense has every right and incentive to request action against that juror, whether or not they are in favor of the defense. The juror is impeding the trial, and if they are replaced, deliberations will be required to restart. If there is a mistrial, that is done at the discretion of the judge.

This has nothing to do with my opinion on the case, this has to do with the court process and how the law is actually applied. What bothers me most here, is that anyone who mentions the law in a way that seems to challenge the “not guilty” verdict in this thread is met with hostility and condescension. This has turned into a freaking kangaroo court.

→ More replies (14)

6

u/mydaycake 13h ago

Oh that is very interesting, I assumed it would be the other way around

→ More replies (4)

8

u/Educational-Bet-8979 13h ago

It could be that all but one thinks it’s unreasonable for the to consider a NG or NGRI since she confessed. You never know with juries.

3

u/APrioriGoof 12h ago

How could one argue NGRI without confessing to the crime? Like, in every single NGRI case they have to admit that they did it before they argue that they did it because of insanity

2

u/JandlesByCan 11h ago

To an extent. But Reddington is a seasoned trial lawyer who has spent weeks with this jury. As a trial lawyer with not even a third of his experience, I would be shocked if he didn’t have a read on 11-1 in his favor vs 11-1 against him.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/Surf_Golf2002 13h ago

Are you sure it's not the other way around?

2

u/kakashi_sensay 12h ago

That’s not my assessment.

2

u/puffinfish89 11h ago

Don’t you think that it’s not ok that you are making that assumption? Not that it’s a bad assumption, but it is literally the judge trying to sway a juror….not the defense, not the district attorney.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/ChexAndBalancez 10h ago

Why would you assume this and not the inverse?... that one juror is holding onto not guilty and the rest agree on one of the optional charges? It seems more likely that most of the jury believes she is guilty in some way and one unreasonable person is holding onto "not guilty"... this is how it's playing out in the greater public.

→ More replies (8)

2

u/ChillnScott 10h ago

Other way around. Most want to find guilty 1 or 2 believe they need to be entirely certain to vote guilty.

2

u/Specific-Bid-1769 8h ago

There are some people in this sub who have convinced themselves it’s 11-1 guilty. They’re going to be very shocked when this is over.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/mvffin 7h ago

Seriously? I would've thought the opposite, but I now remember how stupid the average voter is.

3

u/ParticularMemory789 13h ago

How do you know its not the other way around?

2

u/kakashi_sensay 13h ago

I don’t know. That’s why I said “looks.”

→ More replies (3)

4

u/The_Last_Mouse 14h ago

One who can taste her book deal already.

11

u/LucidOutwork 13h ago

She is on suicide watch. I think that she will try again at the first possible opportunity. I don't think she is thinking about writing a book

3

u/thatonelurker 13h ago

They meant a juror, I don't think this lady is going to oj this situation. I could be wrong

5

u/The_Last_Mouse 11h ago

Yeah the juror, oof.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/ThinkySushi 14h ago edited 13h ago

It could be the other way that the rest of the jury says she is guilty and one person is claiming we can't know.

→ More replies (97)