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

194

u/Grizzly_Berry 12h ago

I was on one (civil case, person v county) and there was a mix of "I think he deserves the money because the county can spare it," "I have done business with the county and they were a pain in the ass, so they should pay up," and "I will switch my verdict if it means I get to go home."

222

u/GirlNextor123 12h ago

This. I was so excited to serve on a jury, and when we finally got to deliberations I was stunned by the dumb and completely irrelevant arguments that fellow jurors were making.

219

u/thakemist 11h ago

This is the issue with a jury of your peers. Most of our peers are idiots

97

u/StockQuahog 10h ago

Same problem voting

3

u/Freakn_Deadpool 5h ago

Once again, lack of resources in public education shows it’s true colors. Wish we cared about it as much as COMMUNIST China does

2

u/Lobenz 5h ago

George Carlin was referring to voters as well as jurors.

1

u/siccoblue 8h ago

They are literally voting on a verdict my dude

5

u/Salt-Lingonberry-853 7h ago

He's talking about regular old (political) voting, not jurors voting on a verdict.

1

u/LowlySysadmin 7h ago

One affects a small number of people (often one!), the other affects all of us

36

u/Torgud_ 10h ago

The median American can't even read at a 12th grade level. They're barely literate morons.

2

u/sumptin_wierd 6h ago

yeah but we got one over on the commies or something amiright

10

u/MortgageRegular2509 9h ago

Three scariest words in the English language are “trial by jury”

2

u/diggitydonegone 5h ago

Most high functioning people have jobs that often disqualify them from making it through voir dire. And many more people move heaven and earth not to be selected. So, often a jury of our peers is not a good cross section of society.

Depending on the type of charge against me, I would potentially choose a no jury trial.

1

u/Lobenz 5h ago

George Carlin said it best.

1

u/matango613 1h ago

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

1

u/Ordinary-Egg-56 8h ago

the fix is simple but of course it will never happen because conservatives won’t let it.

unemployed people can be excused from jury service or paid a fair and reasonable amount for their time (so absolutely not min wage). employed people are protected from losing their job for serving on jury either during or after, their employer continues to pay them during that time and absolutely nothing changes (benefits or otherwise).

next we start celebrating jurors and thanking them for the service they provide. maybe some actual perks or rewards (jurors discount?), public info campaign reminding people it’s their duty in a democracy and people should be willing happy and proud to serve. we’ve all been judged fairly or unfairly in those same courtrooms (or elsewhere) in our lives. don’t we want to return the favor (or correct the mistake by serving impartiality following instruction and considering all the facts).

or a diversity campaign! we can’t have one homogenous group of jurors deciding everybody’s fate. if you’re a minority or literally a whatever job/hobby/interest wouldn’t you want one of your peers on your jury deciding your fate !? then go down and take your turn doing that for someone in your community so someone else does the same for you.

hm i think i would make an excellent politician besides all the winning elections stuff.

-1

u/[deleted] 10h ago

[deleted]

2

u/OurCrewIsReplaceable 9h ago

Great point, my peer!

47

u/RRZ006 11h ago

The average person isn’t very bright or well read/educated and I have to assume juries skew downwards to some degree.

15

u/The_Void_calls_me 10h ago

I mean there's a whole joke in that regard that juries are made up of people too stupid to get out of jury duty

0

u/TerribleBudget 8h ago

And bored people and people who want to get out of a day of work if they are still getting paid.

1

u/Gloomy-Welcome-6806 6h ago

Why would bored people go to jury duty? That makes no sense.

Why would someone want to get out of doing work where you have tasks and things to pass the time instead of doing the most boring thing imaginable and sitting there all day listening to debates?

2

u/TerribleBudget 6h ago

Why would bored people go to jury duty? That makes no sense.

Because it's something novel and different?

Why would someone want to get out of doing work where you have tasks and things to pass the time instead of doing the most boring thing imaginable and sitting there all day listening to debates?

Clearly you like your job. Congratulations. I'm happy for you.

I'm actually fairly amused that I was downvoted for things that are true just because people can't imagine that other people live different lives and have different interests.

4

u/Placesbetween86 10h ago

I hate to break it to you, but they actually don't. Juries are typically older and have higher income and education than the average American. Childcare is frequently claimed as a hardship that keeps people from serving. People whose kids are already adults but still healthy enough not to have a lot of health issues (40-60 range) are the most represented in our juries.

29

u/mantis_tobaggan-md 11h ago

A jury of our “peers” in America is a fucking scary thought.

26

u/slptodrm 11h ago

it pains me that this is supposedly the best system we can come up with, and we put innocent peoples' lives at their whim.

16

u/haskell_rules 10h ago

The good news is that we have studied psychological manipulation of the weak-minded so thoroughly that if you spend enough money on a talented lawyer you can convince a below average intelligence person of almost anything.

8

u/Dustin- 9h ago

You might even convince people that it's only weak-minded, below average intelligence people that can be convinced of almost anything instead of even quite intelligent people.

2

u/BeakyDoctor 11h ago

There are definitely better systems out there, the US just won’t switch to them.

At least jury nullification has been used to good effect the past couple of years

2

u/RedYellowHoney 10h ago

What is juror nullification, exactly? Sorry – legal dunce here. I come here to learn.

5

u/Stewart_Games 10h ago

You can rule not guilty if you perceive the law itself to be unfair. So like a flock camera vandalism case where even if it was technically destruction of property, the property itself violates personal freedom and privacy so you can rule "not guilty" as a way to argue against the legality of surveillance.

2

u/Supercoolguy7 4h ago

Or like you think a white guy did in fact beat up a black guy, but you don't like black guys so you vote not guilty

1

u/[deleted] 2h ago

[deleted]

1

u/Supercoolguy7 2h ago

Can you clarify, I don't understand

1

u/BeakyDoctor 5h ago

Basically a juror’s ability to rule not guilty at any point, regardless of the facts of the case. It is usually used in cases where the law is perceived as unfair, or the prosecution is seen as malicious.

0

u/Ordinary-Egg-56 9h ago

really now, and what system is better?

2

u/BeakyDoctor 4h ago

The mixed panel/lay judge system is one. You still have a jury of peers, but you also have three professional judges. A conviction needs a majority and must include a professional judge. Though this system is also inquisitorial and not adversarial, so the mixed panel is much more involved.

0

u/Ordinary-Egg-56 9h ago

what are u talking about? are you trying to be edgy or ignorant?

the system (as it’s ideally supposed to work) is great.

we know what the problems are but they refuse to fix them.

and that’s just the system in general.

trust me you want a jury of your peers. the problem of course, is conservatives.

destroying education and spreading disinformation and lies. like no matter what thread your on in whatever subreddit your on, if there’s a problem being discussed the root cause is always conservatism (aka authoritarianism).

1

u/slptodrm 2h ago

uhh, no.

10

u/burlycabin 10h ago

The only time I got to serve on a jury, it was actually a really good experience. It was a civil disobedience case and everyone on the jury took it very seriously and we all got along great. I'm sorry your experience was different.

4

u/Eric_Senpai 9h ago

The jury I served in Massachusetts was ALL white people with bachelor's, masters, and phds. I was a college student, was really hoping they'd take me out if the pool for being Asian but I guess I was the wildcard. It was a lot of smart deliberation about facts pertaining to the alleged crime and evidence.

3

u/bkgn 7h ago

I was on a jury for a clear-cut case of stranger rape, and the old women on the jury were blaming the victim for being raped in her sleep by a complete stranger. Trying to say she led the rapist on somehow. Thankfully them being so dumb also made them fairly easy to persuade.

4

u/Practical-Positive34 11h ago

Yeah reality smacks you in the face real quick sometimes huh? I always make up weird ass medical reasons to get out of that selection process. No fucking thanks!

4

u/Prior_Pickle1758 11h ago

bro we need you on the jury lmao

3

u/Beaglescout15 7h ago

Yeah when I was put into the courtroom for jury questions I thought about how I could get out of it, but then I thought that as a reasonably intelligent person, I would want me on my jury.

2

u/Working-Glass6136 8h ago

I had the same exact experience. Served once, and I was excited to be educated (not to mention I was working minimum wage, so I wasn't missing much). All to realize that one person can basically control the whole thing and everyone else just wants to go home.

24

u/Thewal 12h ago

I'm pretty sure that last one ends up being the solution to most hung juries.

34

u/FishfortheElectorate 11h ago

The last jury I was on had nine people saying guilty and three saying not guilty. After all the back and forths about the evidence, it seemed like we weren’t going to come to a decision.

Then one of the people who was saying guilty basically said that he was never changing his mind, and then two more said the same.

Then one of the not guilty voters said he didn’t feel strongly enough to keep everyone there all night and changed his vote to guilty. The two remaining not guilty votes immediately followed suit, and we were out of there within about twenty minutes.

73

u/Ok-Selection2208 11h ago

That seems like a failure of the justice system. People who will decide the fate of someone’s life based on whether they want to go home early are lazy and don’t deserve to be a part of society.

20

u/Marcus_Aurelius71 11h ago

I think a big improvement would be to allow for hung juries. Basically unanimity is needed for the guilty verdict, if there is a hung jury then its acquittal. Makes sense from the perspective you are innocent until proven guilty. If you can't be proven guilty, then by the eyes of the law you are still innocent.

14

u/TerribleBudget 8h ago

Have you met some of the jurors? Some people get off on the idea that they can hold power over 11 other people just by saying something contrary.

7

u/Substantial_Dish_887 9h ago

so you only need to convince 1 person on a jury to be innocent but the entire jury for guilty?

and you don't see problem with that idea?

then again jury trials in general just seem like a bad idea when you begin to actually disect them.

2

u/PerformanceOver8822 6h ago

Well you are innocent until proven guilt.

All 12 should start with " this person is innocent" in their heads.

3

u/RealisticQuality7296 8h ago

No one should have to convince anyone on a jury of a defendant’s innocence. Seems pretty obvious that if a prosecutor can’t convince 12 people that the defendant is guilty then there’s clearly reasonable doubt.

0

u/Marcus_Aurelius71 9h ago

I mean no system will ever be 100% perfect. Also I don't see anything wrong with that. That one juror has made their mind and they have doubt. If the prosecution can't convince every single juror that the defendant is guilty then the prosecution has failed. Besides any huge change to the legal system will most likely involve constitutional amendments so I doubt we will see any changes. But I think its a good thought exercise to find ways to better change the system.

1

u/Substantial_Dish_887 5h ago

That one juror has made their mind and they have doubt.

this entire thread is "horror stories of that one juror who had made up their mind in spite of how they were supposed to act" and the conclusion is that one juror should have the full power of the entire jury to declare anyone innocent?

4

u/rand0m_task 11h ago

As much as I emotionally hate this idea.. you are 100% correct.

2

u/Marcus_Aurelius71 10h ago

Just wondering why?

4

u/rand0m_task 10h ago

Because in cases like this, the emotional side of my brain tells me that she is without a doubt guilty and it would be a miscarriage of justice to let her walk free.

The rationale part says that I don’t know all of the actual facts, and if it can’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt that someone is responsible for a crime, they shouldn’t serve time for it.

Kind of drives the cognitive dissonance in me a bit lol.

2

u/Marcus_Aurelius71 10h ago

I believe it is better to let 100 guilty people go free than to let 1 innocent person suffer, especially through another trial, which could be years from now. Now, obviously, I don't want us just saying not guilty to every person, but if the jury is unanimous in a guilty verdict, then in their minds it's beyond a reasonable doubt, which is why hung juries resulting in an acquittal make sense, because some jurors must have some reasonable doubt. Actually it strengthens the guilty verdict because jurors are no longer punished for disagreeing and mob mentality can arise like now in trying to force jurors to agree with the majority opinion.

2

u/GetInTheKitchen1 11h ago

not true, that's really the failure of the society that produces those corrupt people. I think it is almost impossible to design a fair justice system that takes corrupt people into account. Who will watch the watchmen? You can't do much with corrupt people like that, life is fucked like that.

1

u/FishfortheElectorate 9h ago

Yeah, it was a small potatoes case, but we had been at it all day at that point. When it happened, I was surprised that the not guilty voters changed so quickly. Once the first one said he didn’t feel that strongly about it, the other two switched immediately.

1

u/YouGlittering9156 5h ago

One thing that makes jury duty an issue, is that you don't get paid. There should be a legal requirement to be paid by your employer if you work full time, or by the state.

People shouldn't have the thought, "I need to get out of here and get back to work to pay my bills" while their only focus should be on the trial and verdict.

2

u/Prior_Pickle1758 11h ago

which one was you

1

u/Salt-Lingonberry-853 7h ago

That's absolutely despicable. "I'm bored here so I'm gonna destroy this person's life."

3

u/Automatic-Cut-5567 8h ago

It's crazy reading yalls stories. I was on jury duty for a case of self-defense. Lady shot her BF a couple hours after he beat her black n blue(not the first time). Despite a bunch of people getting booted for bias, all of us that got picked went 'not guilty' without much debate. There was even one chick who had that karen-y works for your HOA vibe, and she agreed too.

1

u/NoThanksGoodSir 49m ago

Those kind of arguments should get people in serious legal trouble because they fundamentally taint the justice system. Of course the last one is something people will just not say aloud, but at least that makes it harder to get multiple people to switch off that mindset because they can't essentially collude.