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

177

u/Anon_bunn 13h ago

I had a similar situation. To be selected for the jury, we all had to swear that we were willing to give the mandatory minimum sentence that we wouldn’t refuse to give it just because it was the mandatory minimum. Lo and behold… guess who was uncomfortable “giving the minimum” when it came time to decide sentencing? This was a murder trial in Houston, where the jury had to decide the verdict and the  sentence.

So three women flat refused the five-year minimum. (This was a case where it was self defense, but he didn’t qualify for self defense under the law because he technically instigated. And he called 911 right away - all on video.) when we couldn’t get them to agree to five, the jury immediately jumped to 10. 

I was only voice to point out that 10 years is 200% of 5 years. And we finally settled on 7. Literally if I hadn’t been there, they would’ve gone from. Nope we can’t do 5? Okay 10 - just because it’s the next round number. 

I left the room despising those people. This man had a special needs child. He wasn’t a dangerous person. The man he killed was demonstrably dangerous. This guy just made a horrible horrible permanent decision on that day. Devastating. My heart is racing just thinking about it.

46

u/miwi81 13h ago

It’s hard for me to imagine a scenario where a person who instigated a fight and killed someone would only deserve 5 years. And I don’t think that the special needs child is really a factor in a murder sentence.

51

u/blahblah19999 13h ago

"Technically instigated" must mean something important here. I can imagine a scenario where there's a dangerous person and someone attacks them in preemptive self defense.

54

u/Anon_bunn 13h ago

It does. The law in Texas is written a certain way, and the jury was given specific instructions. 

He pushed over a man’s shopping cart when the man wouldn’t leave the area. He’d called the police two times before that to trespass the man and the police never showed up. When he pushed the cart, the deceased attacked him. He could’ve done a dozen other things instead of pushing the cart over. He could’ve walked away, he could’ve waited in his car, etc. 

The shopping cart push began a series of events that led to deadly force being used. 

The accused had no history of violence, lots of character witnesses. 

DA wouldn’t offer a plea deal less than 30 years, the DA insisted on trying him for murder. Tragedy all around.

26

u/WelderNewbee2000 13h ago

Well he was probably black, or poor, or worse, both so of course the DA wouldn't offer a deal.

7

u/mydaycake 12h ago

I would have interpreted as the first instigators to be the one not moving the cart when instructed

9

u/legal_stylist 10h ago edited 10h ago

I’d reeeeeealy like to hear those jury instructions because I am frankly doubtful that you lose your right to self defense in Texas simply by taking a provocative action initially that doesn’t even involve touching a person or threatening to touch them.

1

u/TomatoTheToolMan 21m ago

Yeah, in most states (afaik) you can't claim self defense if you instigated, BUT pushing someone's shopping cart doesn't sound like instigating much to me.

1

u/TomatoTheToolMan 21m ago

Yeah, in most states (afaik) you can't claim self defense if you instigated, BUT pushing someone's shopping cart doesn't sound like instigating much to me.

2

u/TurnDown4WattGaming 7h ago

I’m rather surprised that you voted to convict based on that. Sounds like you fell for the prosecutor’s charm. Or maybe the public defender was a wet towel.

1

u/thetateman 3h ago

Or someone started a fight that ended in the other person's death.

1

u/NoveltyPr0nAccount 10h ago

Obviously you were there and saw all the evidence, the video, presumably heard remorse from the defendant. I'm sitting here reading "the guy escalated an argument he didn't have to and rather than take a beating he killed someone". To be totally honest I'm not sure 7 years is enough for killing someone. He'll lose 7 years, that dead guy lost everything.

7

u/Frozen_Thorn 9h ago

Take a beating? A single blow to the head can be lethal. Physical altercations are not something to be so dismissive of.

3

u/miwi81 7h ago

…which is why, if you pick a fight and kill someone, you can go to jail for a long time for murder

2

u/Stormsurger 5h ago

I'm sorry but pushing someone's cart over does not justify physically attacking someone. That's nutty.

3

u/NoveltyPr0nAccount 9h ago

A single blow to the head can be lethal.

Fair but if you frame the outcome that's possible against the literal outcome of lethal I think the theoretical would have been preferable to the actual.

1

u/TurnDown4WattGaming 7h ago

You have two brain cells competing for third place.

2

u/HereComesMyNeck 6h ago

Please find me a single instance in human history of a person, much less somebody with a dependent or child, willingly taking a beating from a homeless stranger for any reason. He tipped over a shopping cart, so he should put himself entirely at the other man’s mercy? That’s maybe the single stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.

You can take issue with him using lethal means to defend himself (clearly the state did), but the idea that someone, no matter what they did, would not defend themselves from violence is absurd on its face. It goes beyond human nature. It’s the basic survival instinct of every animal on the planet.

13

u/enad58 13h ago

Agreed, my kid is special needs and I'm a fuckin' prick. A nonviolent prick, but a prick nonetheless.

6

u/jawknee530i 11h ago

Two guys arguing. Guy one instigates by shoving guy two. Guy two punches guy one. Guy one punches back and guy two falls weirdly hitting the back of his head and dies. It's really not hard to imagine these situations.

7

u/miwi81 11h ago

That’s still just a fight where guy1 attacks guy2 and kills him

1

u/Rahodees 7h ago

How about, big dangerous guy won't leave little peaceful guy alone, eventually as little peaceful guy is trying to exit he reflexively pushes big guy away as big guy keeps a close position to him. Big guy takes this as an excuse to punch little guy. Little guy punches back while trying to escape, and big guy goes off balance and breaks his neck.

Little peaceful guy "technically instigated" with the push.

2

u/Interactive_CD-ROM 13h ago

The average time served for murder in the U.S. is 13 years.

2

u/Atys1 7h ago

Depends on the definition of "instigated" really. But that user didn't actually give us enough information to make a judgment ourselves.

3

u/Rahodees 7h ago

So to make sure I understand that first pargraph:

Someone on the jury was saying "I won't agree to five years because five years is the minimum and we should never just give somebody a minimum punishment"?

2

u/MrFrode Biggus Amicus 10h ago

If they want to play that game could you just vote Not Guilty and force a mistrial in hopes the next Jury is better?

2

u/Past_Teaching_5939 7h ago

fun fact: those "mandatiry minimum" or death penalty qualified jurors are substantially more likely to convict. because the questioning weeds pit those morally against those. ie defense mimded people

2

u/xtc234 10h ago

As you can see in the video; one person can make a difference. I'm sorry that you didn't fight for that man harder. It makes sense you'd feel guilty about what you did.

1

u/987YouBloodyTulip789 11h ago

    He wasn’t a dangerous person. The man he killed was demonstrably dangerous. 

Well only one of them committed homicide. 

This  man had a special needs child.  

Probably shouldn't have killed someone then. Probably should have known the laws better if they were that quick to kill under the assumption the law protected them.

1

u/sean2mush 1m ago

Yeah only 7 years seems shocking to me.

0

u/Embarrassed_Deal3284 10h ago

The law is genuinely morally irrelevant. Maybe if we lived in a proper democracy it would matter.