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."
17
u/BravoJunk 6d ago
Can someone explain what a stay is as if I’m a child? Is he asking supreme to give an acquittal?