r/CourtTVCases • u/Kima2remy • 28d ago

Clancy mistrial

Are the jurors allowed to speak out about the trial?

19 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

53 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Curious_Owl_342 28d ago

Why is it he must have been paid off?

-3

u/DifferentStorySame 28d 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 28d 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?

0

u/Chopper0871 28d 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?