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

93

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.

208

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

63

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?

85

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.

41

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,”

46

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.

28

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.

1

u/Legionof1 9h ago

BEYOND reasonable doubt.

3

u/Tardisgoesfast 11h ago

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

5

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.

1

u/hesh582 9h ago

Eh, there's something else going on here - it's very difficult to raise issues on appeal unless you attempted to raise them at trial.

I suspect the defense knew it would be overruled and did it anyway to preserve issues for an appeal if that becomes necessary. Could be strategic rather than reflecting what the defense actually wanted to have happen.

I do also think, though, that the prosecutors/defense/judge all probably do have a pretty good idea what's going on with the jury at this point even if the specifics remain secret.

29

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.

19

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.

10

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.

13

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.

1

u/Worldly-Basil-8933 13h ago

Mistrial or not if Clancy is convicted I can see this debacle getting the decision thrown out on appeal.

0

u/Iheardyoubutsowhat 13h ago

It really looks like its 11-1 in favor of not guilty. Don't see a conviction

1

u/more_business_juice_ 13h ago

Righteous indignation is his wheelhouse

21

u/CaptZurg 14h ago

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

37

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."

41

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.

11

u/CaptZurg 13h ago

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

7

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.

1

u/Tardisgoesfast 11h ago

I agree. In my experience, the foreman tells the judge the numbers.

4

u/Continuum_Gaming 14h ago

Do you have a link without a paywall?

63

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.”

12

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.

19

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.

39

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.

5

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.

1

u/sykoKanesh 3h ago

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?

Yes. This sort of stuff has been around for millennia, we've ironed out a few kinks here and there.

Also, lawyers.

0

u/CTeaYankee 13h ago

Sounds like you'd be pretty sympathetic to the defense then? You don't want the US government going after someone because of an outcome rather than mens rea.

I mean, if we can't ever establish a reasonable notion of a person's mental state or thought process, why bother with a trial?

3

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".

-14

u/CaptZurg 14h ago

Oh so it's the foreperson who snitched lol

31

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.

4

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."

26

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.”

6

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.

3

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.

2

u/beren12 14h ago

Add blockers and reader mode usually work pretty well

-21

u/Far_Composer_5714 14h ago

Refusing to follow the law? The jury gets to dictate their ruling, that's why the jury system exists. What nonsense.

4

u/LucidOutwork 13h ago

The jury don't get to dictate their ruling; instructions include basing their decision on the evidence presented. Suppose a jury got bored and decided to call a defendant guilty because the wanted to go home or just didn't like the guy, they would not be following the law. In that type of situation, the judge can overturn a verdict if the evidence does not support the guilty verdict.

-49

u/DeNovoReview 14h ago

That's what he would want you to believe.

37

u/Ssided 14h ago

The lawyer doesn't care what "we" believe

-25

u/DeNovoReview 14h ago

He's trying to influence the public to influence the DA to take murder 1 off the table. Don't be so dense people.

12

u/Ssided 14h ago

That doesn't make any sense

-10

u/DeNovoReview 14h ago

I understand it doesn't make sense to you, someone who has never worked in the legal system, much less in prosecution or defense.

10

u/Ssided 14h ago

Lol what does worked in the legal system mean here?

0

u/DeNovoReview 14h ago

Let me put it this way: it's very clear you are not an attorney.

9

u/Ssided 14h ago

Let me put it this way, you're obfuscating your experience because you know it's zero

→ More replies (0)

16

u/Gvillegator 14h ago

Why would what we believe matter in the slightest? Are you familiar with the legal system?

-11

u/DeNovoReview 14h ago

See above. You obviously have no idea how the politics of our legal system work.

60

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?

6

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

1

u/Beneficial_Honey_0 13h ago

Can a juror be removed from an active trial?

4

u/kakashi_sensay 13h ago

Yes.

4

u/Atlientt 12h ago

Isn’t this sub supposed to be lawyers only? How do we have lawyers asking if a juror can be kicked during a trial? I came here bc the shit ppl are saying elsewhere is insane, but I’m seeing the same shit here.

3

u/imathrowawaylurkin 11h ago

I think that's the r/Lawyertalk sub?

2

u/Atlientt 11h ago

Thank youuuu just point me somewhere everyone’s not being insane and moronic ab this case

3

u/imathrowawaylurkin 11h ago

I like that sub for this topic, too. It doesn't raise my blood pressure, lol

2

u/Atlientt 10h ago

lol thank u for the giggle, it offset the spike in my own bp. I hope to god this trial ends tomorrow- I can’t even avoid it at this point.

1

u/Beneficial_Honey_0 10h ago

I just found out about this case today. Can you tell me what’s crazy and what isn’t about it?

1

u/kakashi_sensay 12h ago

This is a great question for the mods. I can’t answer this for you.

-63

u/Blueskyminer 14h ago

Ever actually been on a jury for a murder trial? I have.

You can't possibly know what the vote breakdown is or what the issues are that are deadlocking without being on the jury.

73

u/Ssided 14h ago

Except we do, the jury said there is one juror who is refusing to acknowledge the reasonable doubt standard. That sentence only makes sense if there is one juror who is stuck on guilty.

34

u/kakashi_sensay 14h ago

Exactly. My husband is a trial attorney and that’s his assessment as well. However, we’ll see.

7

u/nascent_aviator 13h ago

It makes equal sense if there's one juror stuck on not guilty who's saying "clearly the husband did it" or something.

1

u/Ssided 13h ago

I don't think the jury would be aware of the husband conspiracy theories. At least they shouldn't be online enough to know about it

2

u/nascent_aviator 13h ago

They certainly shouldn't be.

1

u/jm0112358 11h ago

Even if they weren't aware of the husband conspiracy theories, a juror theoretically could (irrationally) think, "The commonwealth didn't sufficiently prove that the husband didn't do it."

Although that would be irrational, it wouldn't be violating the law regarding reasonable doubt if the juror sincerely believes that it's reasonable to doubt whether Lindsay killed the kids.

1

u/Ssided 9h ago

I don't know how they'd formulate that in the trial though

1

u/jm0112358 9h ago

There are plenty of irrational beliefs that I don't know how people would formulate, but people formulate them anyways.

0

u/jm0112358 12h ago

In the words to the defense attorney defense attorney in open court:

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.

I think this instruction from the foreperson would make sense if that juror was stuck on guilty than on not guilty.

I suppose someone could disobey the law regarding "reasonable doubt" by saying, "I don't think my doubts are reasonable, but I'm voting not guilty anyways". However, I find that much less likely than disobeying it in the opposite direction.

1

u/nascent_aviator 11h ago

Could just as equally be a juror saying something ridiculous like "I think the husband did it." That's not a reasonable doubt based on the information provided at trial, and would likely lead the foreperson to saying exactly the same thing. 

1

u/jm0112358 11h ago

"I think the husband did it" would indeed be ridiculous, but I don't see how saying that would be refusing to obey the law regarding reasonable doubt. I think the foreperson would be lying if that were the case (unless the foreperson assumes that the other juror doesn't actually believe the husband did it, but is rather engaging in jury nullification).

1

u/nascent_aviator 11h ago edited 11h ago

I don't see how saying that would be refusing to obey the law regarding reasonable doubt

It's refusing to follow the law regarding reasonable doubt because it's an unreasonable doubt. There is no evidence on the record to suggest there's any possibility the husband did it, and the defense itself admits she did it. 

1

u/jm0112358 11h ago

It's refusing to follow the law regarding reasonable doubt because it's an unreasonable doubt.

If a juror sincerely thinks, based on what was presented at the trial, that it's reasonable to believe the husband did it (or may have done it), then they're not disobeying the law regarding reasonable doubt by voting "not guilty" for that reason.

Their judgement is irrational in that case, but they do have reasonable doubt in that case. "Reasonable doubt" means that they believe their doubt is reasonable, not that others agree that their doubt is reasonable.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/DeNovoReview 14h ago

Not necessarily. Could be 11-1 in favor of conviction and the not guilty holdout is completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting what beyond a reasonable doubt means. You have no clue.

4

u/Ssided 14h ago

If it was that way, the defense wouldn't be arguing the juror is a problem, they'd prefer the mistrial. They'd also say the juror isn't taking the evidence in consideration, not not respecting reasonable doubt

9

u/DeNovoReview 14h ago

Reddington is gambling. He can't know what the actual vote is. He's trying to represent that it's favorable for the defense. If you can't understand why, I'm sorry, we're talking at way different levels and I can't help you.

4

u/permanent_goldfish 14h ago

I’m certainly not an expert, but I’d guess that after 30 hours of deliberating that he’s feeling fairly confident that it’s either 11 to 1 not guilty or 11 to 1 for a lesser charge like manslaughter. Either way, both are a much more favorable outcome than 1st degree murder

5

u/DeNovoReview 14h ago

I'm not saying it's 11-1 in favor of murder 1. Murder 1 was always the longshot outcome in this case. Your manslaughter example is exactly right. It could be 11-1 in favor of manslaughter, but one juror simply will not budge on NGRI or an outright NG and is applying some absurdly incorrect standard. Reddington is gambling that it's the inverse (11 in favor of NGRI, 1 in favor of some conviction). Any conviction involving criminal responsibility is a W for the Commonwealth.

3

u/Ssided 14h ago

The judge said it's 11-1. Using the context of the entirety of the situation isn't hard.

3

u/DeNovoReview 14h ago

See my response above. It could easily be 11-1 in favor of manslaughter, but you have one hold out for NGRI or NG who is applying an incorrect burden. I'm sorry you can't understand this.

2

u/Ssided 14h ago

That wouldn't contradict anything I've said

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Fun-Key-8259 13h ago

He knows if this is tried again, the State will include more evidence to prove she did it instead of relying on stipulations

3

u/nascent_aviator 13h ago

This is true, if you assume the defense was watching the deliberations. They, of course, are not allowed to. They don't know for a fact whether the lone holdout is on their side or not. 

2

u/Fun-Key-8259 13h ago

They could also be stuck on TikTok drama since they weren't sequestered and are "Patrick did it" like all the Boxed Wine aficionados are. This person may be going for a total "not guilty" because they are convinced and reasonable doubt means nothing to them.

1

u/dpk794 13h ago

Not necessarily. It could be one juror who thinks that any doubt at all is considered “reasonable.” The judge even goes over this in his instructions. It very well could be one person that refuses to accept there is no reasonable doubt in this case.

1

u/Ssided 13h ago

Seems like the jury would say they are not weighing the evidence properly, rather than use the term for determining guilt

3

u/dpk794 13h ago

Well exactly. They are refusing to acknowledge the part where any doubt at all is not considered “reasonable”

-20

u/GabagoolNoZiti 14h ago

But that doesn't mean anything as far as the current vote status. It could just be one person and we don't even know which way that person is voting with respect to reasonable doubt.

15

u/Ssided 14h ago

If they aren't respecting reasonable doubt that means that juror is saying she's guilty. Otherwise the statement doesn't make sense

-11

u/AndThisGuyPeedOnIt 14h ago

Sure it could. There could be 11 people wanting to convict her because they believe the evidence does not rise to the level of reasonable doubt, but this one hold out is not following the reasonable doubt standard.

7

u/Ssided 14h ago

So why would the defense want that juror to be dealt with then?

-1

u/AndThisGuyPeedOnIt 14h ago

The defense has no more clue than you do. They are just guessing. Saying it couldn't possibly be the other way is wrong.

2

u/Ssided 14h ago

The judge said it's 11-1, and said the reasoning. The defense wants the juror removed. Unless you lack all ability to infer or comprehend context, it's obvious what is going on

4

u/PolicyWonka 14h ago

I think people are putting together the context clues of:

  1. Defense asking to remove the juror,
  2. Judge specifically harping on what must be done if the prosecution hasn’t proven guilt (rather than if the prosecution has proven guilt).

It sounds like there is a juror who is basically saying: “I believe that she probably did it of a sane mind even though the prosecution didn’t prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.”

1

u/Fun-Key-8259 13h ago

Reddington knows if this is tried again the State has a TON of evidence to prove it was by her hand beyond her stipulation

-2

u/AndThisGuyPeedOnIt 14h ago

Yes, they are jumping to a conclusion because they want the case to go a certain way. They don't actually know that.

0

u/PolicyWonka 13h ago

They are reasonable conclusions nonetheless.

-6

u/Desperate_Cress_2449 14h ago

Exactly. Unfortunately there is a mob jumping to conclusions on what direction they think the majority is voting, and dismissing/downvoting anyone suggesting it is anything other than what *they* think it is. When there is literally no way to know.

-21

u/Desperate_Cress_2449 14h ago

That can still go both ways though, it doesnt sway in favor of one verdict or another. They can’t decide one way or the other and again, the specifics are not disclosed to the media or the public

10

u/Ssided 14h ago

No it couldn't. One juror not respecting reasonable doubt means one juror steadfast in guilty and isn't being swayed.

4

u/kakashi_sensay 14h ago

Right. If they’re refusing to follow the law on reasonable doubt then that means they’re disregarding the law that states: “this criminal case, the
burden of proof is on the Commonwealth to establish every part of it, every
essential element, beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are left in doubt as to
any essential element, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt,
and must be acquitted.”

Source: https://www.mass.gov/doc/2460-when-jurors-cannot-agree/download

-4

u/Desperate_Cress_2449 14h ago

Youre missing the point that the standard has to be applied regardless of what they choose, guilty or not guilty. All we know is one person is apparently not adhering to the standards, which could mean theyre saying not guilty without regards or guilty without regard. I am really struggling to understand how that isn’t clear here.

7

u/kakashi_sensay 14h ago

Please use context clues to make an educated guess. Who wants the juror removed? The defense or the prosecution?

2

u/Desperate_Cress_2449 14h ago

The defense! Because even if that juror happens to be on their side, it does not help their case to have a juror violating the standards of reasonable doubt, especially if it causes a deadlock or creates an invalid argument for the defense. And you can stop being condescending about this, thank you.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DeNovoReview 14h ago

You are so confident yet so wrong.

0

u/Desperate_Cress_2449 14h ago

They have to apply reasonable doubt regardless of which way they decide dude. Not respecting the standard isn’t an indication of who is voting what.

5

u/Ssided 14h ago

..no.. reasonable doubt is the threshold to break going one direction. If you have reasonable doubt, they are not guilty. So if you are not respecting that barrier it means you are blowing past it.

15

u/shrimpcest 14h ago

You can't possibly know what the vote breakdown is or what the issues are that are deadlocking without being on the jury.

That's absolutely untrue. I have also been on a murder trial jury. That doesn't mean I'm instantly an expert on all things 'court'.

-33

u/Desperate_Cress_2449 14h ago

You’re making convenient assumptions

28

u/kakashi_sensay 14h ago

Notice how I said that’s what it “looks” like in my original comment?

4

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.

-23

u/GabagoolNoZiti 14h ago

The source is made up in their brain. There is literally no way to ascertain this from the information provided.

48

u/movingunderbraking 14h ago edited 14h ago

i mean, defense counsel was the party that argued one juror refuses to adhere to the reasonable doubt standard. it’s not unreasonable to infer it’s swinging not guilty under that context.

i’m not taking that position myself per se but don’t think OP is completely out of line here

21

u/kakashi_sensay 14h ago

Right, lol. I never even said anything in absolute. I said it “looks” to be that way.

14

u/sbd2010 14h ago

For some reason this case has made people act so insane.

8

u/kakashi_sensay 14h ago

I see that. People either can’t read or can’t comprehend the words they’re looking at. It’s really sad.

7

u/Ssided 14h ago

It's a comprehension issue. It's happening to your statement and the statement about doubt. Double comprehension problems teaming up

-1

u/GabagoolNoZiti 14h ago

How is the defense counsel going to know what the jury vote is right now? I've never tried a jury trial, but my understanding is that the jury doesn't consult with counsel.

7

u/richlaw 14h ago

The jury foreman reported to the court.

8

u/movingunderbraking 14h ago

based on a statement made by the foreman juror. the judge questioned each juror of their understanding of the applicable standard in open court i believe.

-4

u/Loud-Start1394 14h ago

Yes, could be the opposite, easily.

12

u/Ok-Secretary455 14h ago

if defense counsel is asking for that one juror to be removed. im going to go out on a limb and say that isn't the one holding up a guilty verdict.​

2

u/-Gramsci- 14h ago

Defense counsel wouldn’t know what’s going on in deliberations. They may want them removed for certain grounds… but “hey this one juror isn’t voting for my client I need them removed” isn’t a thing that happens.

1

u/permanent_goldfish 14h ago

After over 30 hours of deliberations, I’d imagine the defense would probably prefer a lesser guilty verdict (like manslaughter) if it meant they don’t have to do another trial.