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

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

64

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?

89

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.

48

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.

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.

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.

30

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.

18

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.

7

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.

4

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.

2

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

18

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."

38

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.

18

u/Dazzling_Vanilla3082 13h ago

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

10

u/CaptZurg 13h ago

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

8

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

2

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.

7

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.”

8

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.

41

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

32

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.

7

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.

5

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.”

7

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.

8

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.

2

u/beren12 14h ago

Add blockers and reader mode usually work pretty well

-19

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.

5

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.

36

u/Ssided 14h ago

The lawyer doesn't care what "we" believe

-27

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.

13

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

0

u/DeNovoReview 14h ago

I'm a practicing criminal defense attorney. Does my username not give it away? I'm just sick of amateurs like you spreading nonsense.

14

u/Gvillegator 14h ago

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

-10

u/DeNovoReview 14h ago

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