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

81

u/Alfred_The_Sartan 13h ago

That story still holds up so well. Every juror has a personality and an angle. Just masterclass writing IMO

54

u/Bongoisnthere 13h ago

Reese Witherspoon was made foreman of her Jury because other jurors thought she had gone to lawschool for legally blonde.

12 angry men massively overestimates the jurors in that movie. The trial in idiocracy is significantly more realistic

4

u/Rockergage 13h ago

I mean it’s also just not legal law. The 12th man fabricates circumstantial evidence with no basis. Also he just brings a switch blade into the jury room.

19

u/ClawofBeta 12h ago

No? The 12th man is trying to prove to others that the accusation evidence IS circumstantial.

1

u/ScientificSkepticism 1h ago

Almost all evidence is circumstantial. Fingerprints, for instance, or blood residue, both circumstantial.

Eyewitnesses and camera recordings are not, and one of those is a known mess.

3

u/mauvewaterbottle 10h ago

Are you ok? Did you read the play? What is “legal law”? This is such a confidently incorrect take I need to know more.

1

u/Chemical-Editor-7609 6h ago

There are numerous legal analyses that show that he would have been removed, essentially he was acting as an advocate rather than analyzing the evidence provided.

1

u/rand0m_task 11h ago

I teach psychology and show it when we learn about group dynamics.

Incredible film, and you know it’s good when you have a bunch of high school students enjoying a black and white film!

1

u/Lou_C_Fer 2h ago

I guess I'll have to watch it. I was cast as the antagonist in high school, and I thought the play was boring. So, I've never bothered to watch the movie.

1

u/Lepelotonfromager 3h ago

Legally it's a mess because the jury is absolutely not supposed to explore new theories like that (especially without prosecution able to give a rebuttal or present evidence to it) and it's very clear the guy is guilty.

A different guy broke into his house the night he had an argument with his father and murdered him with exactly the same model of knife that he owned and he couldn't remember literally a single detail about the movie he watched that night, also there were two witnesses that must have both been wrong?