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

Show parent comments

219

u/Kermit_the_hog 14h ago

How did that get out?

Edit: Just saw it was a statement from her lawyer. 

211

u/Remarkable-Might-908 14h ago

The Judge said something like "I won't side with one juror vs. 11 jurors" or something to that effect.

210

u/Radioactiveglowup 14h ago

Now that sounds like the exact opposite of the point of having a jury by your peers that requires a unanimous consensus.

156

u/gooneau 13h ago

oh I just read an article and the quote wasn't "vs 11 jurors" it was "I don't feel it's appropriate to say I side with one juror or the 11" which sounds a whole lot more reasonable to me. The "vs" quote made it sound like the judge would favor the 11, maybe just my reading though.

2

u/skeletonhorse420 12h ago

Yea thats what I heard

-19

u/Remarkable-Might-908 13h ago

hence the "or something to that effect"...

17

u/Bobsothethird 13h ago

The 'something to that effect' is doing a shit ton of lifting. In one statement he's saying the one juror is at fault. In the other he is saying he required a unanimous decision and isn't playing favorites.

'I want to eat grandma' and 'I want to eat, Grandma' are not to the same or similar effects.

-12

u/Remarkable-Might-908 13h ago

ok.

8

u/Bobsothethird 13h ago edited 10h ago

Thanks for your amazing contributions.

-3

u/skeletonhorse420 12h ago

Nah you post was just nonsense so ok was a good rebuttle

3

u/Bobsothethird 10h ago

How do? Would you like to articulate your point at all? Misrepresenting someone quote is extremely harmful to the intent. Stating the judge isn't siding with 1 vs 11 implies he's trying to circumvent unanimous necessity. Stating that he isn't siding with either side is the exact opposite. The quotes I used were to represent that point to someone, such as yourself, who may not understand that point otherwise. Simple changes in a sentence can dramatically change meaning.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Prozzak93 10h ago

You would be the one juror not understanding how things work wouldn't you?

→ More replies (0)

74

u/AggravatingFlow1178 13h ago

Yeah this isn't a democracy situation. They don't get an equal vote. Unanimous one way or the other, or else the lawyers have not done a sufficient job of proving their case one way or the other.

2

u/Hot_Ambition_6457 13h ago

There is a specific term for utilizing this feature if you ever sit on a jury. But if you ever publicly discuss the term you won't get past a jury selection

1

u/youhavenosoul 12h ago

What is that?

10

u/Lanky_Wedding_9583 12h ago

Jury nullification maybe?

4

u/Popular-Row4333 10h ago

No idea why they won't type it out in here lol

2

u/ILookLikeIKnowThings 9h ago

Future jury selectors, 19 years from now, are going to read this sub and disqualify you when you seek to serve on a jury.

/s

9

u/Introverted_Extrovrt 12h ago

It requires a unanimous consensus but all the participants have to be acting in good faith. For example, someone using an unknown “masked man” argument that wasn’t ever presented by the defense, is not abiding by the judge’s instructions and is not participating in good faith. That juror should then be excused from the jury pool.

25

u/gooneau 13h ago

ya that is so bizarre, does the judge not have to accept a hung jury? God this country is so fucked, I work around professionals with advanced degrees that are way too stupid to be on a jury for a murder trial, I cannot imagine what the average jury looks like these days. Probably half of them experiencing severe social media/screen withdrawals by 9AM.

47

u/SayNoToTeamSports 13h ago

does the judge not have to accept a hung jury? 

A mistrial is not an advantageous outcome for anyone. It is to be avoided to the extent possible without unduly risking the fairness of the current proceedings. This jury is as apt to decide the outcome as any future jury, that's why they are being pressed into fully deliberating this into a unanimous outcome if possible.

19

u/Constant-Fly-9050 13h ago

Generally a judge wants to avoid a mistrial and will try to exhaust all options until it's an inevitably.

7

u/Late_Zucchini3992 13h ago

Was on a fed jury, half were just bitching about it taking too long, and to get a guilty verdict out asap so they can get home.

1

u/scared_and_afrayed 7h ago

universal suffrage moment

3

u/-bonita_applebum 13h ago

If someone is found guilty by insanity it's  harder for them to prove sanity to get out, than getting out early with good time served.  

It's not like an asylum is any better than a prison.  This isn't some miscarriage of justice.   She has admitted her guilt.  She did it.  It's just how she serves her time, in an asylum with treatment or prison with less psychological treatment. 

Idk.  I say you're a crazy sommabitch to say "I'm going to kill my kids" and instead of walking away on your own for a year and be called an abandoner and horrible bitch the rest of your life to go on to killing them. 

2

u/gooneau 12h ago

I feel like a non-insanity guilty verdict would almost certainly come with a life without parole sentence considering it was three children. I'm way out of my depth on this topic, maybe an insanity verdict would also come with no chance of freedom.

1

u/scared_and_afrayed 7h ago

no. other murderers with far more legitimate insanity cases have--first of all, been convicted--been released in very short order. the condition of release is remission of their condition, which, in this case, doesn't even exist, and would therefore fundamentally make her eligible for immediate release. this is the biggest abortion of criminal justice in the modern era.

2

u/scared_and_afrayed 7h ago

you are so extremely and confidently wrong. her condition is entirely fabricated, and the release of someone found not guilty by reason of insanity is the remission of their condition (which, again, she does not and never has had). the thing that she is is evil. the pathologization of wickedness is the end of our society.

2

u/Justanobodyhello 2h ago

there is no evidence that she was faking. there is a mountain of evidence she was going through a mental health crisis.

1

u/scared_and_afrayed 1h ago

there's a lot of evidence, actually, and kirk heilbrun and gregory saathoff testified that she was malingering. with highly-calculated premeditation, and methodical execution, she murdered her children. she had zero prior documentation of hallucinations before or after the murders; the story she cooked up sounds like bad b-movie writing. she doctor-shopped a dozen different prescriptions for anxiety and depression, and despite this declined aid when offered by a hospital prior to the murders. the forensic psychologist testified her story was "to put it mildly: a very, very unusual pattern or manifestation of how this kind of thing comes about". she researched a bunch of psychiatric conditions before she committed the murders, including "postpartum psychosis" and "can you treat a sociopath" lol.

42

u/gooneau 14h ago

I'm not a lawyer, but how is it acceptable, or a meaningful statement, when an attorney representing a party says "the person on the jury who doesn't agree with me is not following the law"...like why are we having a jury trial if the outcome is so obvious that people would be incredulous that someone on the jury feels a certain way?

84

u/Dyne4R Competent Contributor 14h ago

It's not an attorney, it's the foreman of the jury saying "during our deliberations, Juror x is refusing to follow your instructions on reasonable doubt."

63

u/marjoriedinnerstein 13h ago

It is possible that this one juror has said angry words during deliberations equivalent to "I don't care about reasonable doubt," or "there is no such thing as insanity" leading the foreman to conclude the juror is NOT following the instructions. The jurer may nevertheless believe that he IS following the instructions.

2

u/cubicthe 10h ago

ahem, what's this no-impeachment rule? ah yes, it forbids testimony about deliberations. I mean it's literally the point of jury trial that they don't get coerced by the judge. It would taint whatever unanimous verdict came from this which is why I think this judge is past the point of mistrial

if the foreperson's statement was like that and was acted on, that is inherent mistrial. "no no, you must not have been clear on MY instructions" is directing a verdict. It's Bushel's Case shit - and that defendant *founded Pennsylvania*

-21

u/gooneau 13h ago

Was that foreman then reprimanded for not realizing that jury duty doesn't mean you need to fall in line with the majority of jurors once that majority is clear? Just seems so bizarre to me, again why even have a trial if it's a reasonable statement for the foreman to complain that a juror isn't falling in line with a certain verdict?

17

u/mathmage 13h ago

The stated issue is not that the juror "isn't falling in line with a certain verdict," it's that they're not following the judge's instructions for reasonable doubt. This is the difference between "I don't care what you say, I don't see reasonable doubt of her guilt" and "I don't care if there is reasonable doubt, I'm still voting to convict." One is an unimpeachable difference of juror opinion, the other is disregard for the law that can amount to juror misconduct.

26

u/Popcorn-93 13h ago

I get what your saying but maybe the person refuses to agree to make a decision based on the correct criteria and wants to make up their own criteria. Like in this case imagine a juror just didnt believe in insanity defense, or thought reasonable doubt was too high of a barrier to clear. They could rule guilty for the wrong reasons, which a jury foreman or judge would be frustrated by. Not saying that's all what is happening, but I could imagine that situation

26

u/Dyne4R Competent Contributor 13h ago

If it were just a juror not falling into line, that would not merit the complaint to the judge. It would have to be a juror saying something to the effect of "I don't care what the law says, I want her to go to prison" or something similar. Basically an indication that the holdout juror is ignoring their duty to the court. The foreperson is a juror who has the additional duty of communicating with the court when things like this happen.

2

u/hematite2 12h ago

There's a difference between 'not falling in line' and 'not following jury instructions' and the former was never brought up. If the reason a juror isn't voting the same way is out of line then that's a problem.

1

u/ProletarianLilith 10h ago

No because following the judge’s instructions is the most important part of serving on a jury

1

u/SGTWhiteKY 13h ago

If they have reason to believe that juror doesn’t understand the law they do to an extent

41

u/Life-Anteater-8294 14h ago

The foreperson said that

1

u/Kermit_the_hog 14h ago

I take it that is how it originally got out? Different reports are citing different sources.

13

u/Life-Anteater-8294 14h ago

Nothing got out, it’s a televised trial.

1

u/Kermit_the_hog 14h ago

Maybe I should have phrased it “entered the public consciousness”? I didn’t mean to imply any kind of leak or anything, was just wondering where (or who) it originated from. 

24

u/SchoolIguana 14h ago

Juries are given instructions on how the law is to be applied to the case they’re deliberating. The point of the jury is to provide due process to the defendant and to the states prosecution. If a juror is not following the instructions, that’s not due process.

10

u/dcdem1163 14h ago

The attorney didn’t say that. The jury foreperson stated that in the note to the judge.

1

u/NogglePlease 10h ago

The foreman also said something about it