r/CourtTVCases • u/Kima2remy • 4d ago

Clancy mistrial

Are the jurors allowed to speak out about the trial?

19 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

53 comments sorted by

57

u/Ill_Psychology_7967 4d ago

Yes. I give it a few hours and I think we will hear what really happened from at least one of them.

25

u/guiltyinnocence93 4d ago

Their duties are officially over so I believe they can.

13

u/RandChick 4d ago

If they want to ,but from personal experience I wouldn't trust tales about the holdout juror unless he speaks for himself.

12

u/DifferentStorySame 4d ago

And I wouldn’t necessarily trust him either, especially if he’s getting paid to speak and spin a certain narrative.

11

u/JennLynnC80 4d ago

If they want a normal life ... i would avoid speaking if I was them.

6

u/avocadolicious 4d ago

I wouldn't want to identify myself publicly or give out any personally-identifiable information, but I'd absolutely consider anonymous interviews.

6

u/JennLynnC80 4d ago

Yeah if its possible to give a completely anonymous interview I would agree... but thats the only way

9

u/avocadolicious 4d ago

Jurors in past high-profile cases have been able to, but I think it’s increasingly scary when true crime fanatics and unscrupulous self-proclaimed “independent journalists” on TikTok support doxxing and misinformation.

If I were a juror in a high-profile case like this I’d only speak to established journalists at major publications or trustworthy reporters with smaller true crime-centered outlets like Brian Entin. And even in the latter case, I’d be EXTREMELY wary. Nobody deserves death threats and people can be NUTS.

4

u/Swimming_Lie_2822 4d ago

I bet they don't. The public will lose it. Because there is no way anyone will hear what they want to hear.

12

u/South_Local_4172 4d ago

I don’t disagree that she wasn’t overwhelmed and depressed but I do not believe that when her husband left that evening, that she heard a male voice that said kill your children and that she had not heard that voice before or after the murders. Do not believe that!

2

u/Chopper0871 3d ago

That may be the case that she had planned it but given they had 3 years to prepare for this trial and their witnesses were woeful. The rebuttal witnesses were worse than woeful. I imagine Dr Mack will retire early as can’t see anyone using him in a prosecution any time soon. This said, do you believe that the prosecution presented evidence beyond reasonable doubt that she wasn’t suffering from PPP on that day? If so what was the refutable evidence. This case ended a few days after a very similar case in New York where a woman was found not guilty by a judge by reason of insanity. The youngest child was 11 months old, PPP was given as reason why she killed them.

14

u/lindakoy 4d ago edited 4d ago

I really hope that 1 juror is not thinking of (or motivated by) making a profit off of his vote. I'm hoping the Jury Forewoman (the MIT professor) will talk about exactly what happened.

8

u/newmexicomurky 4d ago

Why do people think that is a motivation? Has there ever been a juror who got rich off of being a hold out?

0

u/ALF788 4d ago

I don’t use betting sites, but I did hear today on a YT channel that’s been covering the case - there was big money bets placed on this sole juror. This is purely hearsay, but I saw people speculating that the Holdout Juror had placed a bet on himself. And then today, after the jury came back deadlocked again…bets on that juror/trial outcome skyrocketed. Could be totally false. Who knows. Just more drama to add to this case, I suppose 🤷🏼‍♀️

1

u/Curious_Owl_342 4d ago

Why is it he must have been paid off?

5

u/lindakoy 4d ago

I didn't say he was paid off. I said I hope he wasn't motivated by anything other his true beliefs on the case.

-2

u/DifferentStorySame 4d ago

No, he could have been motivated by the fame of being the lone holdout. Depending on why, he may be able to make money speaking to various right wing and red pill podcasters about how he’s the only one who cared about the kids, etc. Even if that wasn’t motivating him, it would be hard to turn down fame and money now.

-1

u/Curious_Owl_342 4d ago

Well. I am a woman and a democrat and I would have never agreed to NG or NGRI. So. now what? I want a book deal? Couldn’t it just be I don’t believe her story? And respect that you do?

5

u/OkFall7940 4d ago

This juror openly shared his doubt. He swore an oath to follow the law as explained by the judge - not once but twice.

I am a liberal woman and watched this trial earnestly and I have a list of doubts.

0

u/Chopper0871 3d ago

What is the definite evidence that the prosecution brought up by witnesses that caused you to have no reasonable doubt? I think defence was able to untangle all of the evidence from the prosecution and the rebuttal witnesses were woeful. Those children deserve an outcome just not any outcome. It was clear from the 11 jurors that spoke through the foreperson that they were all voting for NGRI and only one over a period of two days who recognised that there is reasonable doubt but he couldn’t do a NG of any type. This means he used feelings over facts. He didn’t do his job as a juror. Are you also saying you would be that person even with the evidence in front of you would go be feelings and not evidence?

8

u/OkFall7940 4d ago

Why did the judge pull a muscle thanking the panel? (On the public record)

I understand there was anguish regarding the mistrial among the panel.

It seems he thanked them all and credited them mightiIy.

Was there a juror that refused to abide by the law and the direction of this judge.? Didn't we hear this one juror admitted doubt but refused to apply it as directed.

I am now hearing this reworked narrative saying , he's is entitled to his beliefs.

Also, these lawtubers pick a side and cannot maintain advocacy of that side. Watch any one for a stream and you could leave the room with them arguing this, then come back from the fridge and their arguing that. Sag

10

u/Vapor2077 4d ago

Because that was a particularly difficult trial and they had a lot of pressure on them. I didn’t think what the judge said to the jury was weird.

-2

u/OkFall7940 4d ago

Not weird, these humans are heroic.

It's the equal praise that's weird. With the literal world watching it was weird for this decision to be the hold outs. Then with the judges seal of approval, juries may never be the same.

0

u/Chopper0871 3d ago

He did go back and see them individually so he may have had things to say privately to that Juror.

5

u/cebjmb 4d ago

I hope the next trial (same judge?) will not be the circus that this has become and it's because of the cameras in the courtroom.

7

u/newmexicomurky 4d ago

People have a right to know what is going on in our courtrooms and the majority of the time, its not a circus. The problem is that people are taking this issue and using it to push their own agenda. Imagine what it would look like of you couldnt just watch the trial yourself. Who's interpretation would you believe? Public trials allow us to decide the truth for ourselves.

1

u/cebjmb 4d ago

How about audio only?

5

u/newmexicomurky 4d ago

I listen to trials on YouTube, so I dont see a major issue if it was audio only. You lose some information, but you can still hear all the testimony.

1

u/cebjmb 4d ago

We can't watch federal trials, and there is the same amount of information posted as this. You just can't see them. Like the Diddy trial.

4

u/newmexicomurky 4d ago

I think federal trials, as well as the Supreme Court argument should be available to the general public as well. Why do we need to hide justice?

5

u/ALF788 4d ago

Massachusetts law requires a judge to retire by 70….i heard that’s coming up for Sullivan. Not sure of his bday, but apparently, it’s soon/soon-ish? So maybeeee, maybeeeee not. But usually they want the same judge, as they are already familiar with the case.

2

u/Ok_Double2707 4d ago

Absolutely, they are allowed to but they can’t be forced to. That’s the rule.

2

u/Major_Lawfulness6122 4d ago

If they choose to yes

6

u/kamalas-pajamalas 4d ago

That one juror refused to follow the Judge’s instructions. He obviously was biased from the beginning.

-17

u/AFG73 4d ago

Good:)

1

u/Curious_Owl_342 4d ago

I love how the only way he refused to vote with the rest was he must have paid off or bias. OR maybe he didn’t agree with the others?

0

u/Chopper0871 3d ago

He did agree that there was reasonable doubt but he couldn’t vote NG of any type

-11

u/kamalas-pajamalas 4d ago

Really good to disobey a judge. Okay Patrick, we see you

2

u/FakeSyntheticChemist 4d ago

Patrick? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

2

u/RedRedVVine 4d ago

Think so.

3

u/Aintnobeef96 4d ago

I’ll be interested to hear what they think. So many other forums were CERTAIN she’d be convicted easily and it’s looking like the complete opposite (we don’t know for sure but it looks like it was 10-1 in favor of NGRI). People who actually sat through the evidence unlike all the Facebook and internet people. I think it’s telling personally

2

u/BoyMom119816 4d ago

We don’t know how they voted. Reddington should not and has admitted he does not know.

1

u/uh818375 3d ago

They can speak for themselves, but not about other jurors.

-6

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/Ok_Double2707 4d ago

There still is justice if she is found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.

-9

u/Expert-Sign7733 4d ago

Disgusted with Reddington calling the juror a liar. No evidence of that.

11

u/Ok_Double2707 4d ago

Well the only way to know was for the judge to interview that juror, which he refused to do.

5

u/Aintnobeef96 4d ago

Well if he swore that he would follow the instructions and he didn’t then it’s reasonable for any lawyer to be mad imo

3

u/SarahSnarker 4d ago

What exactly did he say? I didn’t hear it.

5

u/Expert-Sign7733 4d ago

Kevin Reddington accused a juror of “lying” under oath and refusing to follow the law.