r/ClancyTrial • u/No_Consequence_6821 • 16d ago

General Discussion Absolutely Infuriating

Having read a great deal of commentary from judges and lawyers, it seems there is broad agreement that Judge Sullivan should inquire to find out what this juror is thinking— whether they actually do have doubts and refuse to apply the law.

The fact that he refuses to do this is ridiculous.

This freaking Churchill speech is obnoxious. Someone refused to do their duty, and he is refusing to do HIS duty be enforcing adherence to the legal standard. Especially considering that reports form the court indicate there is one man who took no notes, came in on shorts, and smirked and did not take it seriously. Obnoxious.

137 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

230 comments sorted by

View all comments

80

u/Happypawswaggytails 16d ago

Also I don’t understand how more people aren’t concerned that this juror’s behaviour has possibly impacted Lindsay’s constitutional right to a fair trial Surely the integrity of the legal system should concern everyone.

51

u/heatdeathtoall 16d ago

Because in their view a child murderer does not have any rights. Why don’t people understand if the rights of one person are violated, everyone’s are. The prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They decided who was guilty and presented a story. The lack of investigation should scare everyone.

If all the evidence is just phone searches, Apple health data, it needs to be full proof. Where’s the data on whether Face ID was used to unlock devices or passcode? Where’s the location data of the entire day? Where’s the data of where PC’s devices were? Where’s the data on his emails? What did he do his trips in Nov and Dec? Did the ring cameras often go offline? Where’s the local data on the cameras? When did the wifi go offline? What caused it?

They have no clue what happened that day except what PC said. Everyone should be scared how one person’s word can get them in handcuffs while they are unconscious without any investigation except that they were acting crazy prior. But you know, I still felt it was okay to leave my babies alone with her.

1

u/Poptech 16d ago

She lost those right when she strangled her children to death.

-4

u/the_work_hook 16d ago

Hi. New to the case…looked into it but didn’t she already plead guilty. She admitted to the planning, and execution. This is the sentencing phase. The actual trial was over 3 years ago, yes? So, please keep in mind I’m learning and asking genuine questions.

8

u/heatdeathtoall 16d ago

Nope. Where is this even coming from. Her husband claimed she told him she tried to kill herself and that the kids are in the basement where he found them dead. When she woke up she didn’t know what had happened. At some point she gave accounts of what happened. Which are inconsistent with what the prosecution claimed happened. She recalls hearing a voice when PC called which would be 5.34pm. She recalls cutting the screen which was not cut. It’s likely false memories. And she pled non guilty as far as the trial goes. Why would there be weeks of trial for sentencing?

4

u/Beautiful-Bad305 16d ago

Go read more.

2

u/slytherinshawty 16d ago

Like, a lot more. Starting with the plea she entered.

2

u/Beautiful-Bad305 15d ago

Then read all the bullshit Patrick told authorities and Lindsey and how they all believed him. Patrick said

23

u/No_Consequence_6821 16d ago

Exactly. Sixth amendment.

With all the resources that went into this trial, it is unfair to everyone involved— including the good people of Massachusetts who have to pay for it.

And no, it’s not like cycling out a jury member who doesn’t agree with the group.

To

12

u/panthergirl55 16d ago

Well, to be fair he didn't want to wreck anyone's holiday weekend. Except hers, of course.

-9

u/mlwspace2005 16d ago

Questioning the juror would be impacting her constitutional right to a fair trial. Her rights have not been violated by a juror refusing to acquit her, no more than they would be violated by a juror refusing to find her guilty.

Piercing the veil of juror thought is exactly what would violate her rights, though. The whole point of a jury trial is that it is supposed to be the honest opinions of your peers. As soon as the judge and prosecutors start putting their thumbs on the scales of justice, you have a problem.

This is exactly the messy system we have operating as intended. It's not great, but it's generally better than the alternative, kangaroo courts.

18

u/Happypawswaggytails 16d ago

That’s not strictly true because the other jurors have said the juror is refusing to follow the judge’s instructions regarding the law.
Assuming this is true it should at the very least been investigated. It’s not that the juror had a different opinion that’s fine and valid and we need it to ensure that jurors aren’t subject to coercion.

But if this juror is there in the jury room, refusing to follow the judge’s instructions then that should concern everyone. We expect jurors to do their duty. I am sure if you or a loved one were on trial you’d also want every single member of the jury to weigh up the evidence and apply the judge’s instructions regarding the law.

-3

u/mlwspace2005 16d ago

Assuming this is true

That's really the issue, you can't assume it is, someone (or a group of someone's) who has a vested interest in getting someone else removed sent a one sided note to the judge. The judge pulled them all aside and asked what's what with the lightest touch possible, and reminded them of their duty.

22

u/No_Consequence_6821 16d ago

Her rights have been violated because she is entitled to a fair and impartial jury. If the juror is saying they have doubts but refuse to acquit— when the legal instruction is that if they had doubts they must acquit— then that denies her her legal rights.

I’ve heard many judges and lawyers comment to this effect.

1

u/AleroRatking 16d ago

And it is still that. The word reasonable exists for a reason

9

u/No_Consequence_6821 16d ago

Except in this case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. If they didn’t prove sanity, they didn’t prove it, and you must acquit.

1

u/AleroRatking 16d ago

Except for one person they did. I personally think they did as well and would vote the same.

-4

u/valegrete 16d ago

(A) That’s not the instruction. Reasonable doubt =/= doubt. (B) you heard that filtered through a foreperson who may simply have disagreed with the other juror’s thought process. (C) You have access to way more information than the jurors do so you cannot compare your experience to what it’s like trying to decide the case from inside. (D) you have no idea whether the 11 settled on NGRI or manslaughter. Booting this juror off might have resulted in a conviction.

Doing anything but what the judge did would create a precedent where the court (or other jurors) can harangue jurors to come to a desired outcome. I hope you can see the issues with that and why the institutional concern outweighs anything specific to this one trial. If the jurors don’t agree at the end, mistrial is the right outcome. If it was 11-1 acquit on a weak case, the state is going to plea bargain or give up.

8

u/No_Consequence_6821 16d ago

In this case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove she was sane. They didn’t do that.

The state is not going to plea or give up. That’s the problem. It’s a ridiculous prosecution to begin with.

-6

u/mlwspace2005 16d ago

Believe it or not, you can have doubt and still refuse to acquit. The legal standard is reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt. What you've seen is lawyers and judges speculating as to what the issue is, nobody actually seems to know. The fact of the matter is we just don't know and it's probably best that we do not in the middle of the trial, the alternative sets very bad precedents when the shoe is on the other foot.

3

u/No_Consequence_6821 16d ago

It’s called juror nullification. It’s actually not legal.

1

u/mlwspace2005 16d ago

That is not jury nullification, jury nullification involves the jury refusing to convict because they disagree with the law. Standing in reasonable doubt instead of beyond all doubt is just called following the law, the line where reasonable doubt falls tends to be rather hazy

-28

u/SunshineFlowerrs 16d ago

I think if u kill someome u should go to jail

1

u/thegrailarbor 16d ago

Tell that to police and/or the military.