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

1.2k

u/Puzzleheaded_Fold466 14h ago

Chances are that a not insignificant number of the jurors to whom the judge is speaking do not have the education and/or the cognitive ability to understand many of the terms and concepts which he is expressing.

1.1k

u/friggintodd 14h ago

You're throwing a lot of big words at me that I don't understand so I'm going to take that as disrespect

207

u/Longjumping_Row3575 14h ago edited 14h ago

Watch your mouth and help me with the sale.

24

u/DrebinofPoliceSquad 12h ago

Look at these 40 year old virgins

4

u/Janky_Pants 12h ago

Aim high, Willis!

6

u/xavPa-64 11h ago

There’s several lines in that scene I want to quote but I can’t cuz I’m white

2

u/Status_Cheesecake_49 11h ago

Haha. I was just thinking the same thing 

1

u/multii-pass 9h ago

I'm 'gina, sup?

0

u/theworldisunfair12 8h ago

You can, just not here

37

u/winkitywinkwink 14h ago

Aim high, Willis!

16

u/SenorEquilibrado 13h ago

This your boy? Because you just got fucked up with him.

7

u/I_am_Magog 13h ago

What did I do?

2

u/ApolloGR3 12h ago

We will both mash you!

1

u/AwareOfAlpacas 5h ago

Always thought it was "clapped up", because he does the hand motion like he's knocking erasers together. 

46

u/Quon-jin 14h ago

"Today's forecast? Dark and cloudy with chance of drive-by."

2

u/AwareOfAlpacas 5h ago

Trivia: Shelley Malil (that actor) for convicted of attempted murder for stabbing his ex-girlfriend more than 20 times. 

Got 12 to life, served eight, was paroled. 

3

u/ImNotAWhaleBiologist 13h ago

Don’t make me photosynthesis.

2

u/werewere-kokako 10h ago

I watched a trial where a man tried to represent himself against a rape charge. "A lot of words will be put forth. Big words. Educated words. Words some of us might not understand."

I played that section back three times because I couldn’t believe it.

2

u/redatheist 3h ago

This is truly America in a nutshell

2

u/twodogstwocats 13h ago

If I could read I would be very offended right now.

1

u/sixtyfivewat 10h ago

Your honor is GUILTY and I sentence you to death! This court is adjourned bang

1

u/batmancdn55 10h ago

When people do that to me I just starts barking woof woof woof.

1

u/ponyo_x1 8h ago

we fuck DWARVES in the ASS

1

u/YaMongrelDog 5h ago

This exact line went through my head listening to the judges speech so... I guess I'm the one lacking cognitive ability.

1

u/ibiacmbyww 58m ago

Weird memory - seeing that scene for the first time and immediately losing 5% of my faith in humanity as I realised there are definitely people that incurably stupid out there.

1

u/Turbulent_Minimum448 47m ago

Man that scene was pure gold

0

u/OkPen8337 7h ago

I had an ex like this and I didn’t realize what a decent number of our arguments were about until years later.

“Why the fuck would you say that to me!? Do you know how fucking pretentious you sound???”

“Uh, I don’t think that’s pretentious…? What’s wrong with using that word?”

“It’s condescending! Can you think of any other way to say that that’s not pretentious and condescending!?”

(Well, if I say it in smaller words I think it sounds worse so I’m not gonna say anything…)

123

u/ShiningRedDwarf 14h ago

who tf you calling a cognitive.

If anyone is a cognitive it’s YOU

19

u/coozehound3000 13h ago

A cognitive eh? Well you sir are a festesio! See? I can make up words too.

2

u/cubluemoon 5h ago

Now my brain needs to know what a festesio is. Best I can do is an abomination of a Ford Fiesta and a Kia Soul

1

u/coozehound3000 5h ago

It's a joke from Family Guy.

26

u/Neesatay 13h ago

This exactly. I was thinking to myself, "does he not realize a lot of people are really dumb and probably don't have any clue what he is saying?" Or maybe they screen for that in the jury pool?

3

u/Academic_Flatworm752 9h ago

Well, both prosecution and defense get to pick jurors. Sometimes one side might purposely choose people who seem a little dumb or who are more likely to think in a certain way

0

u/RedditBugler 8h ago

You have it backwards. People are screened off a jury, but nobody is selected to be on a jury. They go through the jury pool and find reasons to strike people. They don't actively select specific people. 

2

u/mostlyallturtles 6h ago

lawyer here. in some cases you absolutely select specific people and backdoor your way into it.

1

u/horangiwhakkatchi 4h ago

You don't actually 'select' then though right? It's more of trying to strike people you don't want, so that by process of elimination, you end up with who you do want? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by 'backdoor'?

1

u/jayriemenschneider 4h ago

They have to read a very specific statement that lays out the burden of proof. He isn't choosing his own words. If he were to editorialize, there would be a very easy argument for a mistrial / appeal.

124

u/BlahBlahILoveToast 13h ago

Judging by various comments I've read on Facebook or heard from friends IRL, the average American strongly conflates the severity of the accused crime with the likelihood of guilt.

In other words, "she killed her kids, therefore she doesn't deserve a trial. Instant death penalty, no Due Process".

The part where not having a trial means we technically don't actually know she's responsible for killing her kids is irrelevant. Kids are dead, therefore we are enraged, therefore no Due Process is required.

77

u/HerculesIsMyDad 12h ago

The last decade or so has really proven to me how much society is held up by a sliver of the population. If most things we take for granted were put up for a vote we would be living in a hell hole toot sweet.

43

u/henryptung 11h ago

As they say, the best argument against democracy is democracy, but the best argument for democracy is everything else. We embrace things like jury trial and general voting not because they produce the optimum or ideal result every time, but because the risk of abuse rises exponentially as power concentrates.

8

u/Cheshire-Cad 10h ago

If most things we take for granted were put up for a vote we would be living in a hell hole toot sweet.

*gestures vaguely at everything currently happening because things we take for granted were put up for a vote*

6

u/Popular-Row4333 10h ago

You're dead on, but as the poster below said, the alternative to what you're saying and things like eugenics, have been thought and tried even and the outcomes are worse almost all the time.

What needs to happen is that sliver needs to grow, people need to volunteer more, for everything. I've volunteered for things from coaching kids sports, scouts, and police commission of my town and it's ao evident that no one volunteers for anything anymore. And the sad thing is, once you volunteer and they realize your a competent person, they just pile everything on your plate.

2

u/richardcraniumIII 7h ago

Yep - that's what happened to me. Oh, you want to volunteer? Welcome to Hell.

No regrets on volunteering! Except that time I had to wear a full bunny costume for preschoolers. Jumping all around like an idiot. But at least I didn't have to say anything. Just hopped around the kiddos who loved it.

2

u/austac06 6h ago

Just fyi, it’s actually “tout de suite”, which is a French phrase meaning “right away”. When spoken quickly by a French speaker, the “de” sort of blends with the other words and it comes out as “tout d’suite”, which, to a non-French speaker, sounds like “toot sweet”.

3

u/theworldisunfair12 8h ago

I mean we all know that she did it though. She strangled those kids. Most people have a hard time accepting that she could have a not guilty verdict because we know this. Myself included.

The question is whether you buy into her mental health excusing her actions. For a lot of people, your mental health is no excuse for this, regardless of proper intervention could have helped. Again, myself included. If you are so mentally unwell that you kill people… sorry, I don’t care. You are a danger to society. You need to be permanently kept out of it.

1

u/TotallyRealAccount9 6h ago

Ding ding ding

Every murderer has something wrong with their brain, normal people dont resort to murder

1

u/Few_Tale2238 7h ago

To be fair, the main point of a trial is to prove whether or not someone did a crime. I think that’s pretty clear by now in this case. Motive usually only factors into sentencing, or different categories of a crime like manslaughter vs different degrees of murder. Insanity verdicts are very rare for any crime period, let alone murder. It may be fair to let someone off on that basis for a lesser crime, definitely for any victimless ones, but at some point, regardless of why someone did a crime, they are a danger to society and the world needs to be protected from them.  If a bear tries to kill you, you don’t let the bear kill you just because it’s a bear, or just because said bear isn’t always killing people. You shoot it, and it sucks to do, but you gotta stay alive. 

Now yes, she deserves a trial like anyone else. No, the crime probably doesn’t deserve the death penalty. But I’m not sure of any other murder case that’s ended like this. Certainly not one involving the murder of children.  

1

u/Jasranwhit 7h ago

Both sides agree she killed her kids.

1

u/sovereignlogik 5h ago

Nice strawman

24

u/winkitywinkwink 14h ago

"a jury of your peers". Scary.

29

u/entr0picly 14h ago edited 13h ago

Frederick Douglass might disagree (that people are too dumb)

10

u/TexasRoast 14h ago

Douglass*

3

u/Puzzleheaded_Fold466 14h ago

I see your point, good quip, but you’re mixing up some things here. Not quite apt.

22

u/entr0picly 14h ago edited 13h ago

Douglass was famous for talking incredibly dense to the common man because he believed that anyone can understand even when he talked about really complicated things.

Today his words are so dense that practically no one can even understand reading him, including highly educated people, and yet he could reach the uneducated.

Yes, I don’t disagree people today aren’t able to understand. They aren’t, you’re right. But I guess my point was we can reach them because Douglas was able to. We shouldn’t ascribe absolute incapacity when there is potential.

8

u/Gloomy-Ad1171 14h ago

Pre mass lead poisoning?

2

u/IWillLive4evr Competent Contributor 12h ago

Do you have a citation for the claim that Douglass's style was "dense"? I have never heard this before, and while I have only read a little of his work (his speech "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" in particular), but it seems to me no more or less dense than other leading public figures of his day.

It is remarkable, of course, that Frederick Douglass was one of the best orators of his time, given that he had to fight harder for his education than any of his white peers. That does not make him overly difficult for modern educated readers. His style is comparable to the Declaration of Independence or Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and well-educated kids read those all the time.

2

u/violetqed 13h ago

famous? source?? people can understand his writing…

0

u/entr0picly 13h ago edited 12h ago

https://prospect.org/2026/07/28/aug-2026-frederick-douglass-indefatigable-american/

>From a modern standpoint, it is almost unbelievable that Douglass could get huge crowds of people, most of whom did not have even a high school education, to pay rapt attention to flowery, hours-long speeches, often full of learned citations and elaborate arguments. But they kept coming back for more.
>There may be something to the idea that television and cellphones have ruined the national attention span; professor friends of mine relate that if they assign any Douglass speech, it must be heavily abridged or students simply will not read it.

Edit: seriously I provide the facts and.. downvotes. Read the article. The American Prospect is serious journalism.

2

u/flaming_burrito_ 13h ago

That’s different from not being able to understand it, that’s just students being lazy and not wanting to read

1

u/entr0picly 13h ago edited 13h ago

Is it though? That’s my point though. Douglass treated literally anyone believing they could have the attention to take the time to understand him.

And then my point is people aren’t dumb they just don’t have attention these days. So you’re proving my point.

If everyone is experiencing the same “lazy”, can you really blame an entire generation? And the implication is that students used to be able to read it. The implication is it’s not just students. The implication is it’s everyone in our present.

You should read the article you might learn something… that is if you have the attention, which you sadly probably don’t, which is the problem.

2

u/violetqed 12h ago

I kind of get what you’re saying but it’s just not true that “highly educated” people can’t understand Frederick Douglass

not to mention that english has changed a lot since his time and that can make it more difficult to understand today than it was for “common” people to understand in the 19th century

1

u/entr0picly 12h ago

I said including. I didn’t say “all highly educated” people. Of course some can pay attention long enough to understand. My original point stands unchanged.

And college students absolutely fall in the regime of highly educated.

Read the article.

1

u/flaming_burrito_ 12h ago

Yes, presumably given enough time anyone could understand what Douglass was saying, but I highly doubt there was ever a significant portion of uneducated people that took the time to do that. Often, amongst poor and enslaved people in the past, there would be a person who was educated enough to be able to read something and spread its message. A lot of times this was the pastor or someone involved in law. So it was still more or less translated to them, it was not like today where people can read but don’t understand, most of these people literally couldn’t read. It’s ridiculous to suggest they could just consistently glean meaning from words they do not know.

Furthermore, this is a bad example because Frederick Douglass lived 150 years ago, so a lot of his use of language will have become anachronistic in the modern day, and therefore is literally harder to understand than it was then.

I don’t want to disagree with someone who was so much more accomplished and qualified than me, but I just think this is not and was never true.

2

u/entr0picly 12h ago

Read the article I cited.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/RetiredPath 13h ago

His name is spelled Douglass. Kinda disrespectful not to spell it correctly.

19

u/genescheezesthatpls 14h ago

I often think that’s the goal

5

u/Apptubrutae 13h ago

It’s almost impossible to avoid.

-2

u/Le_Botmes 13h ago

Not everyone is a legal scholar. These are arcane terms with specific definitions that would be unfamiliar to the laymen

1

u/Academic_Flatworm752 9h ago

They explain the definitions to the jurors. They’re all adults who should be able to read.

1

u/Le_Botmes 7h ago

I think the judge did a fine job of doing that already.

3

u/miketangoalpha 13h ago

This has become an issue with the evolution of judicial rulings in general. So much “legalese” has evolved that to follow most of the arguments you need to be involved in the system everyday or a lawyer.
Even the standard of “reasonable suspicion” or belief is no longer a “reasonable” standard due to the evolution of the judiciary

3

u/Glum_Class_9578 9h ago

That’s almost by design; law, linguistics and logic are very closely related fields and none of them are easy in general. Expecting random people off the street to suddenly in a matter of days or even hours to not only retain much of the legal information, but to also analyze it within unfamiliar on even unreasonable (from at least their perspective) constraints and reach a definitive conclusion is absurd.

2

u/redsonya 12h ago

I had to serve on a grand jury for my county in 2021. Everyone was still freaked about COVID and cases were super backlogged. Nothing that ever would have crossed my mind, ha. But our grand jury selection ended up serving for 4 months. So a week out of each of those months, not 4 mo straight.

The docket was about 1 1/2 inches thick. Like, binder sized amount of paper. I assume that is not normal, at least that’s what we were told. Cases as old as very late 2019. That may be a better description.

ANYWAY. I somehow was stuck as the “secretary”, chosen by the court. The foreman is a name literally drawn out of a hat. Dude was not bright. Doodled rebel flags and etc on his docket pages. I suppose that maybe why they have “secretaries”. But yes, there were 16 of us, and 3/4s were… not analytical thinkers. To be kind.

I learned a lot about the justice system. Because the prosecutor’s style of describing things and indictments and all that legal jargon was not at all changed to help people understand what they are talking about. And a large group of people will not ask questions to get clarification, unless someone else asks first.

I asked those questions to the DA and ADA even if I knew what they meant, so the others could understand. It was a bizarre experience to say the least. DAs are shit teachers, and I think that it is very deliberate. Afterall, the grand jury is only presented with their side.

-4

u/njwineguy 14h ago

The condescension in this sub is unfuckingbelievable.

35

u/fuckFFBmods 14h ago

lol are you familiar with the American public? Do.you know who the current president is and how many votes he got?

There's a high probability that on any given jury at least one person is dumb as shit.

2

u/drosse1meyer 13h ago

perhaps but isnt this why voir dire is so important?

3

u/njwineguy 14h ago

Well that’s true of any twelve people.

14

u/fuckFFBmods 14h ago

Exactly?

-2

u/njwineguy 14h ago

My original comment referred to the condescending attitude prevalent in the sub. The comments have characterized the jurors as a whole as not intelligent enough to understand the instructions. That’s condescending.

4

u/mightylordredbeard 13h ago

Probably because they seem to be having a hard time understanding the instructions hence why the judge is having to repeat them instructions and define specific terms within the instructions..?

0

u/njwineguy 13h ago

You can understand the instructions completely and still have a hung jury.

30

u/Spartan05089234 14h ago

Hardly. The judge had to explain it as he did because those are well tested jury instructions. But they're not actually easy to understand and the way he read them doesn't help.

-2

u/njwineguy 14h ago

If you don’t think they’re easy to understand maybe you have the problem. You know nothing about any of the jurors. You are making assumptions because that’s all that you can do. You are assuming they’re not smart enough and not as smart as you. That’s condescending.

9

u/hoserb2k 13h ago

I can only speak for myself, but I had a hard time following and understanding that explanation. I can't say I'm more or less intelligent than the members of the jury, but I completed post secondary education if that's worth anything.

1

u/njwineguy 13h ago

My problem is with the “do not have the education and/or the cognitive ability” statement. That is all assumption which is condescending.

5

u/Dandan0005 13h ago

As someone who has sat on a jury before, the distinction between a reasonable doubt and all possible doubt is not a super easy concept for someone who has never had to consider it before to grasp immediately.

I say that as someone who is statistically more educated than the average America.

And while he does a good job explaining it, it’s also objectively true that half the population reads below a 6th grade level and 1 in 5 Americans is functionally illiterate, being unable to make simple inferences.

That’s just the reality. It’s not a condescension.

-1

u/njwineguy 13h ago

It still requires assumptions about the jury in question.

2

u/Dandan0005 13h ago

Assumptions based on the statistical demographics of the country?

3

u/ElectronicAirline855 12h ago

Wow that dude is in a really argumentative mood, what is his deal? Is he a juror do you think?

4

u/GuineaPea 13h ago

man you are really passionate about combating condescension online

2

u/RockyOW 12h ago

no need to fight this much against a statement when it’s obviously just true, let’s be serious

1

u/njwineguy 12h ago

So you know these twelve jurors personally?

2

u/RockyOW 12h ago

all of them yes.

2

u/Spartan05089234 12h ago

I am a lawyer. I have significant experience with litigants and witnesses receiving instructions from the judge (not juries, I don't do jury trials). If I found it presented in an unclear manner as a lawyer, and I have (dare I assume?) significantly more experience than you in courtrooms and listening to judges, including already knowing what the judge was going to say and what it meant, and I concluded that it was difficult to understand, that's actually an expert opinion that you'd have to be pretty arrogant to discount.

Go ahead and tell me you don't believe I'm a real lawyer.

1

u/njwineguy 12h ago

I’m not discounting your opinion at all. I’m just tired of seeing comments on here running down the jurors and suggesting that the case is “too complex” for them. The assumptions and lack of respect for twelve people they literally know nothing about is simply condescending.

Thanks for the insights.

1

u/BoleroMuyPicante 9h ago

Statistically speaking at least one juror is a moron. No one is saying all 12 are stupid, but even one is enough to cause a mistrial.

1

u/njwineguy 9h ago

Or. None are and they have legitimately different takes.

18

u/ComplexBadger469 14h ago

I mean the something like 50% of Americans can only read at a 6th grade or below level. That effectively means they can read words on a page, but it’s completely hit or miss on if they can formulate any sort of information gathering/critical thinking related to the text they just read. All they effectively learn when reading is what was explicitly written on the page.

I can see this with half of my college educated coworkers when they read emails or chat messages. 😂

7

u/Dismal_Rice_7282 13h ago

Don't know why you're getting downvoted for stating a fact - https://www.thenationalliteracyinstitute.com/2024-2025-literacy-statistics

7

u/Puzzleheaded_Fold466 14h ago

It’s a fact, and it’s an important one of which to be aware.

That doesn’t make anyone inherently lesser than the others.

You can spend your whole life studying these concepts and still feel uncertain about your own knowledge and understanding.

It’s not an easy task to explain them in a succinct way that can be understood by all.

2

u/RedditTab 12h ago

21% of Americans are functionally illiterate. It's a genuine concern.

2

u/njwineguy 12h ago

What is the relationship between being illiterate and lack of intelligence? I know plenty of “ignorant” people who can read just fine.

1

u/RedditTab 12h ago

They often don't know big words. They also may be unable to understand sarcasm or infer meaning. Both skills may assist as a juror.

1

u/njwineguy 11h ago

Other than the big words part, what makes you think illiterate folks don’t understand sarcasm or can infer meaning?

1

u/RedditTab 11h ago

They're natural consequences of being illiterate. I imagine with enough exaggerating anyone would interpret sarcasm, but I'm not an expert. I mentioned these because there are instances during a case, but I don't know this case, the skills may be relevant.

I don't think sarcasm was invented after printing press; and it's mostly related to interpreting written sarcasm, but I'm not sure how much it affects verbal communication. However, inferencing is a muscle that illiterate people will not have a lot of experience practicing otherwise.

1

u/njwineguy 11h ago

I really have no idea as I’m not familiar with any related research. My experience is that not all illiterate people are ignorant and not all intelligent people are particularly smart when it comes to reading people, making inferences, etc.

In the end, absent knowing anything about the specific jurors the derogatory way to which they are referred is condescending.

1

u/RedditTab 11h ago

Yeah, I personally don't think illiterate people are "dumb". I'm an American millennial and my grandfather was illiterate and he taught me a lot. I didn't even know until after he passed.

People are not all the same, though. I wouldn't be surprised if someone was illiterate would be totally fine, while another would be totally lost and confused. When they send you for deliberation they send you with a paper that outlines what the charges are and what you need to know (which is what the judge reads to you). If you have a good memory it won't matter, but if you don't, you could be confused what exactly you're doing there. I know the paper has helped me before. (I got the paper in Michigan idk if it's different elsewhere)

2

u/AbroadTiny7226 14h ago

There’s a reason it takes a three year post-grad degree to become a lawyer. You wouldn’t go say that shit in a subreddit about medical professionals

1

u/njwineguy 14h ago

So only lawyers should be jurors? The rest of the population is too stupid? Help me understand the point of your comment.

1

u/AbroadTiny7226 12h ago

You were speaking about the actions of the people in this sub being condescending and I responded to that. Idk where the fuck you’re pulling this from

-1

u/njwineguy 7h ago

Because I simply don’t understand the point you’re making. I would say it in any sub if people were being condescending

0

u/triptopdropblop 12h ago

Maybe 1% of commenters in here actually have a law degree, who are you kidding haha

-6

u/ProtoCore-Dustin 14h ago

Never seen a group of people so militantly defend a child murderer in my life.

This case is a direct reflection of how bizarre and unhinged western society has become.

5

u/njwineguy 14h ago

I’m not defending her. Guess you’re not smart enough for a jury.

-2

u/ProtoCore-Dustin 14h ago edited 13h ago

Never said you were, I was referencing the comment you’re replying to, who is.

If I’m too stupid for jury duty, you’re too stupid to even read a Reddit comment.

1

u/sleep-exe 14h ago

Nobody is arguing that she didn’t do it. The prosecutors are going for murder 1, which requires intent. I’ve been on a murder jury before and it’s not always as clear as you think.

It’s whether or not she had intent and was NOT under the influence of post partum psychosis.

This is why the discourse about this has been so toxic. All reductively/reactionary without knowing the details of the case.

-1

u/ProtoCore-Dustin 13h ago

Killing more than 1 child easily proves intent, or else she would have had shown some sort of remorse after the first - she kept going 2 more times. This person does not deserve to see the light of day as long as they live.

The consequences of letting criminals off lightly has had disastrous consequences in the west, and is plainly obvious when you step off a plane into a first world eastern country where threats of violence and theft are not only culturally frowned upon, but have actual consequences.

The “slap on the wrist” application of the law has failed, and it’s time to stop pretending it hasn’t. Not everyone deserves to participate in the social contract and must be removed for the health of said social contract.

It’s actually sad we have to have this discussion, a man who kills his entire family out of the blue is never treated as insane, despite the fact that no sane person would do such a thing - he’s just a bad person. For some reason we’re performing summersaults to defend this woman however.

2

u/Dry_Tell_8604 12h ago

Slap on the wrist? I don't know where this line of thinking comes from. Anything over 10 days in jail is going to be life ruining for most of the population. The real issue is how easy it is to get arrested and after your life is already fucked, you're going to do things that result in getting locked up again.

1

u/ProtoCore-Dustin 12h ago

This case is both the guilt of murdering her children and also an insanity case wrapped in one. A not guilty verdict would set her free until the verdict of the appeals case.

0

u/sleep-exe 13h ago

No. It doesn’t.

Look into psychotic episodes. They don’t just ‘stop’ or let up when something horrific happens. People with severe PTSD can experience similar episodes.

Again the argument is intent, not whether or not she actually did it.

She will not get a slap on the wrist. She still did the action.

I served on a murder jury and had a single juror hung up on intent as well and made the same arguments you are.

She will still do the time. She will not ‘walk free.’

-1

u/ProtoCore-Dustin 13h ago

The act of murdering a human outside of self defense is by definition a psychotic episode - this is not the behavior of a mentally stable human being.

The function of the law is to punish and remove those that cannot function within the social contract, that is its singular purpose, your excuses only serve to undermine that purpose, for what? Parasocial virtue signaling?

1

u/sleep-exe 13h ago

You have no understanding of psychosis or the law, it just is what you think it should be.

If you're gonna spout bullshit and get nasty at anyone, take it up with the prosecution who went for murder 1 and the investigators the mucked things up.

1

u/ProtoCore-Dustin 13h ago

The law isn’t just, only the application of it.

You’ve lost sight of the bigger picture completely. Brush up on Rousseau and you’ll find there’s a hierarchy of laws, and you’re looking at the bottommost layer and ignoring the rest.

1

u/wontheday 11h ago

I agree that it’s confusing but he’s reading off the jury instructions which have to be word (and even punctuation) perfect because ultimately, applying the law incorrectly is immediate grounds for appeal and a new trial. Lawyers fight about the instructions on a hyper specific level for this reason. He really has no leniency to deviate from them when giving an Allen charge (what this is).

1

u/DomitiusAhenobarbus_ 11h ago

To be fair - her attorney got to interview all of those jurors and select them from the pool. The state doesn’t just pick 12 people and say good luck.

1

u/timemoose 11h ago

I don’t understand the question and I won’t respond to it

1

u/Tricky-Ad7897 10h ago

I'm a product of public education including community college and I can comfortably say the average member of the public is wholly unequipped to deal with matters of the law including jury duty. It's a massive blind spot in civics classes which is insane because jury duty is like the only civic duty you have to do if called upon.

1

u/iono_maybe 9h ago

I think this all the time. The judge must use those exact words because that is the language specifically chosen and is the law as written. But the average person in America is not smart enough to understand that language. The words are too big and confusing. It is astounding to be confronted with the stupidity of the average person. Because truly, A LOT of people are stupid. They lack reading comprehension, media literacy, critical thinking, and even proficiency and vocabulary skills in the one, single language they speak.

1

u/stevediperna 9h ago

Yeah he needs to ELI5 big time

1

u/cardmanimgur 8h ago

There was a story today about how Reese Witherspoon was named jury foreman because lots of jurors assumed she had gone to law school because of her acting in Legally Blond.... So, yea...

1

u/Midscores5 8h ago

Who has the transcript to run the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level test on this!?

1

u/TheoNullDrei 7h ago

Or, even simpler, they are ideologically compromised and unwilling to give up on their convictions. This is assuming that the majority of people on the jury are mentally sane and willing to give her the punishment she deserves.

1

u/ostracize 6h ago

What you doing using your big school words  jus use normal people words and ill know what your talking about

1

u/_bits_and_bytes 6h ago

Yup. There are people who are legitimately too stupid to sit on a jury. I worked at a junk yard as a teen, and one time, our mechanic got summoned to jury duty. There was some line in the document about understanding what the document told him. He told us he read it and didn't get it, so he had his son read it to him and his wife read it to him to try and understand and he still couldn't understand it. So he went up to the court house and told them he didn't understand it. They told he didn't have to serve that day but he would have to serve next time he was summoned.

1

u/Lizard_Li 2h ago

I was just thinking this but actually not even going so far. I’m an Ivy League educated know-it-all who is sort of glazing over listening to him, like this is not an approachable explanation in the slightest, sounds too academic and to be frank actually doesn’t really clarify.

1

u/OverallBoot4148 2h ago

Inconceivable!

1

u/dimechimes 2h ago

I gotta admit once he brought up "moral certainty" I checked out

1

u/Aescwicca 43m ago

It's been reported that it's literally a single juror who is holding out for guilty. And the judge is explaining the states burden and what reasonable doubt means because you can just say "I feel they are guilty in my heart". There are actual rules.

0

u/Responsible-Tap-3748 9h ago

Yeah like wtf is a commonwealth! The rich?? Fuck the rich!

-4

u/EddieVanzetti 13h ago

People? Being dumb? Perish the thought! (Just like her children that she murdered perished.)