The Lindsay Clancy Trial

So when from an inclusion in a current events summary to a mainline topic. I will repeat what I said previously just to set the stage.

A woman in Massachusetts, by the name of Lindsay Clancy, is on trial for murdering her three children. There is no question about whether she did it. She admits that she did it and hers lawyers admit that she did it. This hasn't kept feminists on the Internet from claiming her husband did it even though there is video evidence that he was at CVS at the time. The issue being debated is whether she was mentally ill and had been misdiagnosed which led to her being given medicine that made her condition worse rather than better. 

The trial is over, and has ended in a mistrial, but it's interesting how it got there.

It started with a note from the jury saying that they were deadlocked. As per standard procedure, the judge simply sent them back to continue deliberating. There was no indication as to what the split might be.

The jury then sent a second note saying that they were still deadlocked. Superior Court Judge William Sullivan delivered the Tuey-Rodriguez charge, a supplemental instruction urging the jury to make a final effort to reach a unanimous decision. There was still no indication of the split.

Then the jury sent a third note which showed considerable frustration. The note claimed that one lone juror was "refusing to follow the law." They had expressed doubt but refused to vote for acquittal.

Well, that brought us into a whole new situation. It was now clear that the vote was 11-1 for acquittal and the 11 were claiming that the 1 was not following the judge's instructions.

Judge Sullivan read the whole jury a definition of "Reasonable Doubt" and polled each jury as to whether they were prepared to follow the law and his instructions on the law. Each said that they were, so they were sent back for a third time.

Clancy's lawyer, Kevin Reddington, was going a little nuts. His client was one vote from acquittal. He got up and "suggested" that the judge remove the one juror and replace him with an alternate. The judge, correctly in my opinion, refused to do so. Somewhere along the line Reddington used male pronouns to refer to the juror, so everyone concluded that it was a man, even though the jury had six women and only three men. 

The Lone Juror, held out and the judge was forced to declare a mistrial. Reddington threw everything that he could come up with to prevent that, but to no avail.

The court, prosecution and defense have scheduled a meeting for the end of September to discuss scheduling a retrial so it looks like we're going to do this again.

The Internet went a little crazy over this. There was everything from calls for the Lone Juror to be tar and feathered to declaring them a national hero. I'm still not 100% certain it's a man by the way. Given the vitriol going around, they might want to lay low for a while.