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

107

u/nascent_aviator 13h ago

We don't know that. The admonition given here could cut both ways. He specifically mentions that reasonable doubt is not beyond all doubt.

In any case judges are forbidden from asking jurors in the minority to reconsider towards the majority without asking the majority to reconsider towards the minority. It's not the judge's job to lean on one side or the other.

There's no indication as far as I can tell that even the judge knows what the actual split is. There's something about the foreperson saying that one of the juror's is not following the judge's directions, which hints towards 11-1, but even if that's true we still don't know to which side.

1

u/Jor94 4h ago

But her defence team is arguing to get the person replaced. I cannot imagine they’d want the only juror on their side gone.

1

u/nascent_aviator 3h ago

The defense doesn't know, can't possibly know, whether the juror is on their side or not. Jury deliberations are secret. They're just betting on an educated guess.

-1

u/Midlife__Crisis__ 12h ago

Didn't the defense move to disqualify one juror? Doesn't that indicate which side the split is?

26

u/nascent_aviator 12h ago

Didn't the defense move to disqualify one juror?

Yes.

Doesn't that indicate which side the split is?

No, they don't know any better than we do. I suppose it's a gamble. Probably a good one, because if it's 11 guilty 1 not guilty they're probably screwed in a retrial anyway.

2

u/Ambitious_Weakness33 6h ago

Seems like it’s just to get the ball rolling. If it’s guilty then moving to an appeal. Of NGRI then getting her committed. Mistrial just starts the process all over again

2

u/Lepelotonfromager 4h ago

Retrial at least keeps her locked away for longer.

6

u/az-anime-fan 11h ago

Didn't the defense move to disqualify one juror

yes

Doesn't that indicate which side the split is?

technically no, in a reasonable and ideal world the defense would be playing the odds. 9 women 3 men, means it's likely the women side with the defense. which means the holdout is probably one of the 3 men. so making this motion is playing the odds

the reality is he's probably heard from one of the jurors in a way that probably isn't quite legal that it's one of the men and he's refusing to rule not guilty by reason of insanity.

so does his motion mean we can 100% believe it's someone holding out for a murder conviction, no, but i'd say it's a reasonable assumption.

Still there is a chance he's just playing the odds. for all he knows he might be dooming his client IF it's one of the women refusing to convict on murder... still it usually takes proof someone is being intimidated or manipulated (bribed) for a juror to be removed, which is why the judge shot that motion down.

0

u/dschinghiskhan 6h ago

but even if that's true we still don't know to which side.

There are nine female jurors and three male jurors. In a case where jurors are allowed to factor in emotion (read: buying the defense's medical team's testimony), it's disingenuous to suggest it's not almost certain that the lone juror is a male who wants to throw the book at Clancy. The difference between 100% certainty, which is impossible, and being "almost certain" really isn't much of a gap. I feel sorry for the lone juror having to hear the judge's speech, and for having to justify his opinion over and over again to the other jurors. If he doesn't buy the defense's testimony, then that's that. He should feel no qualms sticking to voting guilty. Or she, if it's a female. That's also possible, of course.

1

u/ExaminationBasic787 1h ago

Conservatives spent days writing fan fiction about three brave men holding the line against nine irrational women. Now it’s 11–1, and we don’t even know whether the holdout is male or female. But we do know at least two of their men are women now. Stunning and brave.

0

u/GNSasakiHaise 3h ago

It could also mean, for example, that the juror is not following instructions to avoid consuming the news on the subject. "Well, I saw on Reddit that she X..." or "My girlfriend said Y..." or etc.

2

u/MissesMiyagii 1h ago

If they said that they would immediately be pulled from jury duty. That is explicitly against the law for them to consume media or discuss it with anyone. So no it can’t meant that

1

u/GNSasakiHaise 57m ago

It should mean that they are immediately expelled from jury duty. It does not always, especially in 2026, where internet use is a given. Typically, this does not result in immediate dismissal. This may prove a useful read, as it details a case where a juror refused to stop after being reminded... but was not immediately dismissed, which could present a similar roadblock here.

1

u/MissesMiyagii 43m ago

Because internet usage and discussing the trial/reading about the trial are 2 totally different things lol

1

u/GNSasakiHaise 25m ago

In one particularly astonishing case, Dimas-Martinez v. State (2011), the Arkansas Supreme Court overturned a capital murder conviction in part because of a juror’s Twitter posts throughout the trial. The juror failed to stop his Twitter activity even after being told that he was threatening the integrity of the trial. The court ruled this behavior to be “juror misconduct that calls into question the fairness of [the] trial,” arguing that “it is in no way appropriate for a juror to state musings, thoughts, or other information about a case in such a public fashion.”

Instead of being dismissed, this juror in the second link I sent was warned... and the trial wound up being thrown out. You can kinda read more here regarding the case.

The court noted that the appellant’s claim was not simply that the juror tweeted about the case; rather, the appellant argued that the juror continued to disobey the trial court’s instructions, which prejudiced the appellant. “The circuit court’s failure to acknowledge this juror’s inability to follow the court’s directions was an abuse of discretion.”

1

u/MissesMiyagii 21m ago

Yes you’re proving my point. Back to the original thought, there is no way a juror on the Lindsay Clancy trial is openly saying they have been discussing this trial or reading about it as a reason to not switch their vote 🤦‍♀️

1

u/GNSasakiHaise 17m ago

This is what you said:

If they said that they would immediately be pulled from jury duty. That is explicitly against the law for them to consume media or discuss it with anyone. So no it can’t meant that

I have proven that is not what happens. The consequences in all the cases I mentioned came after the trial. They would not be immediately pulled from the jury at all, even if they did something as flagrantly against the rules as tweeting about their involvement on the case... or just reading the news on their phone when let out.

So yeah, I feel pretty confident it could reasonably mean something like that, and that there is no use speculating on what is going on here until we receive more information. For all we know, and much more likely, it's just a holdout trying to have his 12 Angry Men moment.