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

212

u/Radioactiveglowup 14h ago

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

158

u/gooneau 13h ago

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

2

u/skeletonhorse420 12h ago

Yea thats what I heard

-21

u/Remarkable-Might-908 13h ago

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

15

u/Bobsothethird 13h ago

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

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

-13

u/Remarkable-Might-908 13h ago

ok.

8

u/Bobsothethird 13h ago edited 10h ago

Thanks for your amazing contributions.

-5

u/skeletonhorse420 12h ago

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

3

u/Bobsothethird 10h ago

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

-1

u/skeletonhorse420 10h ago

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

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

In case you forget what you said lol. Just nonsense

2

u/Bobsothethird 10h ago

Again, I feel like you can't comprehend basic points here. He drastically misrepresented the statement to mean the opposite of what the judge was saying. I clarified that words matter and that, much in the case of asking grandma for food or eating her, it's important to use the correct words to ensure such confusion doesn't take place. I do hope you figure out this point as it's important to grasping the argument being had. And further, it's important to avoid the argument you seem to want to have.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Prozzak93 10h ago

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

-1

u/skeletonhorse420 10h ago

No im just mocking that dude for his specific vibe dont worry

71

u/AggravatingFlow1178 13h ago

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

1

u/Hot_Ambition_6457 13h ago

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

1

u/youhavenosoul 12h ago

What is that?

11

u/Lanky_Wedding_9583 12h ago

Jury nullification maybe?

6

u/Popular-Row4333 10h ago

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

2

u/ILookLikeIKnowThings 9h ago

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

/s

10

u/Introverted_Extrovrt 12h ago

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

24

u/gooneau 13h ago

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

44

u/SayNoToTeamSports 13h ago

does the judge not have to accept a hung jury? 

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

20

u/Constant-Fly-9050 13h ago

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

8

u/Late_Zucchini3992 13h ago

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

1

u/scared_and_afrayed 7h ago

universal suffrage moment

3

u/-bonita_applebum 13h ago

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

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

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

2

u/gooneau 12h ago

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

1

u/scared_and_afrayed 7h ago

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

2

u/scared_and_afrayed 7h ago

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

2

u/Justanobodyhello 2h ago

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

1

u/scared_and_afrayed 1h ago

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