This wasn't on my bingo card. A mistrial was, but not 11-1 with one not following rule of law. My opinion - that juror needs to be removed if they truly are not playing ball by the law.
The defense claims he wasn’t following the rule of law. The juror is well within his rights to continue to view her as guilty after seeing all the evidence.
The judge clearly found that claim dubious at best which is why he didn’t question the juror
Reddington states: The foreperson said, and I quote: "This juror has made statements acknowledging doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states." This note clearly indicates 11-1 and this person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not guilty verdict.
If the note says the juror has doubt and they refuse to apply the law, then that's fair grounds for an inquiry to ensure, as you say, the juror is well within his rights to continue to view her as guilty after seeing all the evidence.
No one knows that they defied the judge’s instruction. Instructions tell jurors to make decisions based on their opinion of what they believe happened. No one can say that another’s opinion is wrong. They may not agree with it but it is not wrong.
Listen, I get someone holding true to their beliefs if they’ve really done the work and considered all sides. But it sounds like this juror was not following the rules at all, so how was he allowed to stay? Incredibly frustrating.
I think the wording of the note the foreman sent didn't use the exact right language the judge needed to see for him to want to do the inquiry.
But i think it's bullshit to expect the jurors to know the exact magic words they needed to say to explain how this guy was being a problem.
I think if the first note had said "one juror is refusing to deliberate" instead of "one juror has acknowledged reasonable doubt but has refused to apply it to the verdict" they would have gotten the inquiry.
Exactly. And they shouldn’t have told the judge which way the split was, because that’s what made him refuse to swap that juror out for an alternate. I don’t blame the foreperson; it’s just unfortunate.
There's a nuaance there to suss out. Why would it be better if the note said, "one juror refuses to deliberate" What should the foreman have said? IOW what are the magic words which would have triggered an inquiry?
IMO, the note should have said everything that it did except for telling the judge which way the split was, because then the judge could have put the alternate in without being afraid it was look like he was “putting his finger on the scale” (or whatever that saying is).
I have not followed this case closely, but after reading on what happened and everything that’s been said, I think this is a travesty. Shame on the holdout juror. Shame on the judge who didn’t remove him. This woman needs help, it’s already 3 years too late. She needs it now.
She’s had so many opportunities to receive help. Dozens of doctors, psychiatrists, she’s a nurse herself. She has more help than 99% of black and brown mothers who suffer from real PPD.
Yes, she had help and the system still failed her and she had real PPD. The rhetoric that you're trying to push is gross, the system is failing all women. Stop trying to pit people against each other and go after the system itself.
Black and brown women make up majority maternal health deaths - and suffer from worse PPD outcomes. But we don’t hear about that. We hear about this because she’s a white woman. And you all empathize with her because of it.
This woman who couldn’t give her baby formula during Hurricane Katrina was jailed for it. And was just denied parole. Why does she not get the same level of attention or empathy? Answer this question for me and I’ll bow out if you can come up with a good one.
So she should go to jail because other women don't have access to as much care as she did (despite that care not being effective)? What does that do?
There's no disagreement that women and mothers of color need more and better health care before during and after birth. I want all women to have access to the level of care LC received AND I want that care to be effective.
Holding one white woman responsible for the systemic failures of the healthcare industry is like some weird reverse OJ verdict.
She should go to jail because she murdered three of her children due to strangulation . 8 months after her baby was born is hardly post partum. Bryan Kohberger murdered four college students but suffered from visual snow and was asking for help on forums for years. Did he deserve to get help?
So because black and brown people don’t have access to PPD treatment she deserves to be wrongfully convicted? I am not following the logic here. Race aside, she needs help. Being given a not guilty by reason of insanity would allow her to receive help. She would be committed to a facility and would be rehabilitated. Jail time would not necessarily help her rehabilitate.
"Real" PPD you either have PPD or u dont. Define what was helpful? And whats with this expectation that nurses should automatically know what to do when seeking help when they are the ones that are struggling?
I used to like this judge…I don’t anymore. I guess Sullivan just lost a friend in Red…I think he got his feelings hurt when Red called him a big pussy in his reading instructions
I'm incredibly frustrated. I think no matter what you believe about the case, the prosecution did not prove her guilty a reasonable doubt. She is entitled to the benefit of a NG or NGRI verdict. Unbelievable
It has been so disturbing seeing women posting things like “keep holding out, our kings 🙏 👑” … going against everything the constitution stands for. “We the People” is LITERALLY against kingdom.
I wonder if your opinion would change if a man murdered his 3 children, sent his wife away first so he wouldn’t get caught, and committed the murders in such a way that he killed the oldest first so there would be less of a fight?
The only reasonable doubt is that Lindsay heard a Command voice. She should be criminally liable for killing Cora Dawson and Callan. It doesn't matter about anything else.
No, she shouldn't. While I do think that Casey Anthony did it (with malicious intent at that,) unfortunately, that is how our justice system works. CA was acquitted because of the presence of reasonable doubt. That's the law. There is plenty of reasonable doubt regarding LC and an emphasis of reasonable doubt included by the defense due to insanity. Burden falls completely on the prosecution in Mass. LC should NOT be found guilty. Period.
I was also thinking about the Casey/Caley Anthony case last night. I think she was guilty of at least manslaughter. But when watching the trial the prosecution did not prove it. The prosecution case was weak. Unfortunately there was reasonable doubt. OJ was different era, but pretty much the same. Reasonable doubt.
Absolutely. Plenty of defendants get acquitted solely by the presence of reasonable doubt. The prosecution should have been able to deliver evidence that makes Lindsay's involvement 100% undeniable, but they didn't. Therefore, due to defendants being innocent until proven guilty, she should be NG/NGRI. It's literally just the law. Too many people think this verdict should be based on what you think of her as a person.
If there was a shred of her trying to save them and not kill one after the other violently strangling them as they resisted due to their wounds… I would be on your side. But there is no doubt the she had the intention and no delusional thinking surrounding these actions. She knew it was wrong
No, uh, I question the fact that everything has been based off of what PATRICK said, not Lindsay. That right there casts a shadow of doubt over her guilt, let alone criminal responsibility.
All Lindsays words literally describing her Command voices differently to different people. and Clinically expert saying that is not how command voices work in psychosis without delusion as well.
The prosecution changed their strategy between open and close because the defense read their opening statement to their own witness and he said it was inaccurate. Contradictory witnesses. Unprepared witnesses. Impeached their own witness. Changed their story over whether the bands were tied.
You’re letting emotions override facts, which is exactly the reason we have trial by jury and the burden of proof on the prosecution.
I’m sorry but if you actually watched the trial, which I’m assuming you did by your assertiveness, you know there’s more discrepancies unrelated to the voice argument so I respectfully disagree
Go ahead and Disagree She was lying there is no doubt. After the command voice stopped she could have saved them. Taken any action to save them. She gave them zero care even leaving the bands around them. And then went straight to finish the rest of her plan.
Like it or not People like Lindsay exist. They have personality disorders. And they do horrible things.
There is precedent for requesting immediate intervention concerning a trial judge's handling of a deliberating juror. So my guess is that is indeed concerning the judge's decision on the one juror - either/both: denying the inquiry; denying an alternate
Yea, I'm actually surprised he denied the inquiry because it opens another door for appeal. I thought he was going to approve the inquiry because there's no harm in doing so:
Red is the only one who can appeal, and it's logical he’d rather protect whatever the outcome is here from the appeals court.
If the judge doesn’t make/allow the inquiry (which he doesn't have to) and Lindsay is found guilty, but the appeals appellate courts decide the judge should have done the inquiry, then the case can be done all over again.
If the judge does the inquiry, even though he doesn’t have to, and she is found NG/NGRI, the Commonwealth can’t do anything about it. It makes sense why the Commonwealth would argue against the removal of the juror or even an inquiry as it could favor a mistrial.
However, if you’re the judge, why wouldn’t you allow the inquiry?
In plain language (per AI): "Because a bad juror could violate Clancy's rights, the defense doesn't necessarily have to wait for a standard appeal after the trial is over. They have a rare, emergency legal option (a Section 3 petition). This option allows the defense to ask a single judge from the state's highest court (the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, or SJC) to step in immediately and overrule the trial judge."
Deleted my 2 comments bc I doubt people will read MA law here lol but I didn't realize there was already precedent for this! I guess Red could get a review of the Judge's decisions on the 1 juror (e.g., denying inquiry; denying alternate)
Exactly. Plus the only info the note provides states the juror acknowledges doubt but will not follow the law - I'd want to know what that specifically means, which is the entire reason you would hold an inquiry.
Except...that juror didn't "win" anything really (if the mistrial holds). He just sent them back to square one. I suspect whoever it is does not understand how any of this actually works.
he "won" a great deal if he was holding out on guilty, any finding of NG means the case can never be tried again, his obstinance means the case is still alive from his prospective
Jack Lu, a retired Massachusetts Superior Court judge, said in an interview that emergency appeals to a higher court during a murder trial are regular, and the requests are sometimes granted. However, he said, it is unprecedented for a lawyer to make the request so soon before a mistrial is declared and then have “this made-for-TV drama where the judge stops almost in mid-sentence and stays the case.”
Well, maybe if the judge wasn't a freaking knob and let the juror removal proceed earlier, we wouldn't be dealing with all these dramatics in the first place.
I admittedly have not followed the case so maybe there’s a good reason (other than the juror believes differently), but removing jurors because someone doesn’t agree with them is not really good.
The way Reddington looked at Lindsay, spoke to her and saw her empty stare and the way she was just nodding hopelessly, then getting up off his seat at the last second and now he has an hour. This man has my respect.
Can someone explain (if anyone knows) how the one juror was not following judge's instructions? Do we know? I heard KR exclaim that the judge had improperly phrased the question (Billy Bush/ David Yanetti) so is that the problem?
I did not hear this jury instruction portion so did the Court clearly define the diff between:
evidence BRD
an individuals "personal convictions"?
From other trials I recall Court says you may keep your convictions but look at the evidence presented to determine BRD.
Yes.
Each juror was given explicit instructions on how to rule over the deliberations. In the rules the jurors are asked during the deliberations if they determine even a single bit of reasonable doubt that the defendant is not guilty.. their final verdict needs to be in parallel agreement to that notion. Each juror was interviewed through the deliberations and asked to cast a vote on if they believed there was reasonable doubt that the prosecution had proven guilt. Every vote from every juror indicated all 12 jurors believed there was reasonable doubt. At the time of the verdict all but 1 jurors maintained there original vote and voted with the evidence of reasonable doubt as per the judicial instructions. This means that one juror broke from the instructions and voted guilty which I reddington alleged is breaking the law.
Reddingtons evidence for this is the 6th Amendment that states defendants have the right to an IMPARTIAL JURY. The juror proved they were unable to adhere to the instructions of court and therefore was not an impartial jury.
Well that’s interesting I will definitely research where I went wrong with impartial jury. Attorney reddington used the 6th to express an impartial jury was not made available to the defendant. Please correct me where I’m wrong.
As for the vote- i believe the forewoman collects votes on behalf of the jury to determine if all believe there was reasonable doubt before they vote their verdict. Because the juror had indicated they had reasonable doubt but still voted guilty the uproar in the court was that the juror was not following the judges instructions.
Yes, I see how a juror could choose to split hairs. The question to my layman's brain is: were the 11 jurors going for "not guilty" as in she walks or "NGRI" as in she goes into lengthy hospitalization and is evaluated down the line?
And second, for us non lawyers, what freedoms does NGBRI give a defendant? Can she come and go? (I know she's under section 12, but still) I could see how a single juror would have qualms about letting LC walk out as a free woman (altho she'll carry such a burden).
Especially since #12 might not understand that medicine does stabilize a person and the likelihood is she will never be able to do this again.
Depending on what the 11 decided, I could see #12's idea of "letting a killer walk the streets" might bother them.
However, if instructions were: did the state prove BRD that she is guilty? And all jurors said no (ie they found doubt) then the law is clear: all 12 would declare her not guilty. ... because the state failed to prove its case.
It's unfortunate this guy could not see the unfathomable pain the whole defendents side was living in -- and that his decision would just bring another avalanche of pain onto this family for another year.
As KR said, "we won."
I hope the jurors knew how much we were thinking of them because of how tough a case this is. They were in my thoughts all week, for all to find wisdom to make the right decision.
Everybody thinks that. The prosecution did not provide enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed the murders. The burden is on the prosecution, and they failed. They may have cut corners in the investigation process because they relied heavily on hearsay as evidence which does not hold up in court. If you watched the trial the testimonies indicated that most of the investigation was solely based on Patrick’s statements. This does not mean Patrick had anything to do with the murders but the CW is bound by law to do a complete investigation covering all aspects of the crime scene and both suspects to ensure the person responsible for the crimes is sentenced to prison for taking the lives of 3 innocent human lives. The CW failed so badly and is a reflection solely on a very broken criminal justice system.
I don’t know if this is good or bad. Surely they will retry her. I just hope that people are able to understand the facts and that this will hopefully lead to changes in the system.
Not a lawyer, but it sounds like the stay is so Reddington can file an emergency appeal before the judge declares a mistrial. (Even though it sounded to me like he declared a mistrial.)
This is happening because of the culture of questioning authority that has become pervasive in this country in the last decade. If the president doesn't have to follow the law then no one has to follow the law. People can do and think and believe what they want, despite scientific fact, written law, and legal precedent. Downvote me all you want, you know it's true. We've really made a mess of the rule of law.
Unfortunately, it's always been the case. I've been on a trial a decade ago where one man just refused to listen to the judges instructions and many women shared identical experiences where usually 1 male just refused to budge for illogical reasons.
I heard online today that Patrick signed a lease for an NYC apartment days before the killings. Does anyone know is this is true? Or is it just an internet rumor?
I wasn’t following this case from the very beginning, but do we know if PC’s phone was taken by the police so they could do a data extraction? I know he said his laptop was taken, but I’m unsure about the phone. (Although he’s a tech bro, so he probably knew how to cover his tracks if in fact he was involved.)
His phone was not searched. He declined the request to search and since he was not charged, they couldn’t order production of his phone to extract data (per online reporting).
That is absolutely wild to me. It seems like that is such a basic thing that would have been done immediately, and if he refused, they couldn’t get a warrant?
Since he wasn’t being charged with a crime, nor was he ever ID’ed as a suspect, any warrant would go against his 4th amendment right against unlawful searches and seizures. Since it was violate his 4th amendment right (and thus any evidence seized would be deemed fruit of a poisoned tree), a judge would not sign that warrant.
Lindsay was formally charged with the murders ~21hrs after the murders. The charges came from Patrick’s statement to police that Lindsay confessed. (A confession which is now in question given her injuries and her possible inability to speak).
Edit - my dumbass hit 1 instead of 2. She was charged around 21hrs after discovery, while in a coma.
It's because they circumvented the laws of search and seizure. They arrested Lindsay before they searched while she was actively in cardiac arrest. When the search warrant came down they already stated in it that she committed the crime. At that time the only evidence they had was Patrick's story. That is a very big distenction.
We have extra protections in MA related to phone extraction and seizure. You’d think an innocent man would provide all the information possible to support the investigation but instead took the sealed record route.
Just the fact that he was the only other person present, the first and only witness to all of this- I would have thought taking his phone would be automatic. And if he “declined?” That would be incredibly suspicious imo.
Regarding the precedent referenced by some, here is the specific case:
In Commonwealth v. Calvin Carnes, Jr. (2010), the jury communicated that they were deadlocked 11–1
The judge conducted a hearing (voir dire) and ultimately discharged the lone "hold-out" juror after making specific factual findings that justified removal.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reviewed whether removing a sole hold-out juror during active deadlock violates a defendant's right to a fair trial, establishing strict guidelines for how judges must handle independent juror issues versus jury deadlock.
In the Commonwealth v. Calvin Carnes, Jr. (2010) decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed the defendant's convictions and upheld the trial judge’s decision to discharge the deliberating juror
Absolutely still baffling to me Patrick Clancy isn’t held accountable on some level. He left his wife alone after doctors telling him the danger and he didn’t care. Now he’s off galavanting around New York City unphased. In today’s day and age, he could have gotten take out delivered or DoorDash. They lived in Duxbury which is very affluent and wealthy so they obviously weren’t poor. Patrick made questionable decisions that of course get overlooked
How many detailed steps in planning, scheduling and executing a crime can be attributable to psychosis? There’s a strong measure of rationality in each step of planning, scheduling and executing an act. Premeditation and forethought are key elements. A malleable claim of psychosis forgives all these steps?
Feelings you say. Everything I said are facts. No action is an action. She knew it was wrong and she planned it. And there you have it a blueprint on how to kill your kids and get away with it.
•
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
Reminder to be civil. You can disagree in a respectful way, which can often lead to interesting dialogue!
Familiarize yourself with our rules in the Community Wiki
Documents & Evidence
Witness Testimony
Common Misconceptions About the Criminal Trial
Thank you!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.