He read the standard jury instruction back to them. It's the written instructions they already have.
Lindsay Clancy Trial
147,666 Views |
1643 Replies |
Last: 2 hrs ago by ShaggySLC
That doesn't lead to one conclusion over the other is my point. Reddington objects because he is trying to set up an appeal if necessary. Assuming that it's a specific vote one way or the other, especially in light of how many possible charges are in play, is a fool's errand.
Maybe I'm misreading this entirely, but my impression from all that was there are 11 jurors voting to convict and one holdout who it is bejng claimed is not using the "reasonable doubt" standard.
To me, what the judge said makes no sense if it's the other way around. Why would he stress the difference between reasonable doubt and all possible doubt if the lone holdout wants to convict?
To me, what the judge said makes no sense if it's the other way around. Why would he stress the difference between reasonable doubt and all possible doubt if the lone holdout wants to convict?
Aggie95 said:Vessel said:
So they're saying one juror appears to have reasonable doubt, but still wants to convict?
Otherwise the claim makes no sense.
I view it as they have 11 ready to acquit and one that is adamant that he/she THINKS she's guilty and is holding out and not following the reasonable doubt "rule"
If 11 of 12 want to acquit on a triple homicide case of this nature...where a mother methodically murdered her three children...and her and her defense attorney admit to it...we probably deserve the comet right about now.
That is what I was referring to. I was taking that as the holdout might be a not guilty based on that. Everyone else thinks they have passed reasonable doubt but one keeps holding onto straws of any possible doubt and refusing to budge...maybe even making "what if" statements of hypothetical and ignoring what reasonable cause is. Again, could be completely wrong, but just found that first instruction interesting.
the attorneys were allowed to read the note. The fact that the defense attorney was desperately trying to get the juror booted, means the jury is ready to acquit
Defense lawyer claims one juror is holding up the process. Those women should be ashamed.
Then either this country is past redemption or the attorney wants to set up an appeal based on a judge improperly intervening.
5Amp said:
Defense lawyer claims one juror is holding up the process. Those women should be ashamed.
Makes one wonder if the second the words "hormones and postpartum" were uttered the ending to this story was written in stone.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
Twice an Aggie said:
We will see. It sure seems that the judge explained passing reasonable dount but not having to be completely certain first. That would lean towards 11 guilty and 1 holdout who is on the NG side. Judge speech pointe out the state must pass the reasonable doubt threshold but not establish complete certainty. Maybe the juror is playing a what-if type game angering other jurors with the social media conspiracy theories. We will see.
If a juror is bringing in social media conspiracies, the jury should speak up and let the judge know. That is reason to declare a mistrial. The jurors are not supposed to be reading or watching anything about the trial, outside of the courtroom.
Double Talkin' Jive...
I can't fathom there being a way that the holdout is the sole juror willing to convict
This reminds me of a Henry Fonda movie.
How in the world to get 11 not guilty votes in a case like this?
Are the jurors scared of what will happen if they vote guilty?
If it was 11 guilty and one hold out that would make 100% more sense.
In no timeline should a parent that murders 3 of their kids be allowed to walk.
Are the jurors scared of what will happen if they vote guilty?
If it was 11 guilty and one hold out that would make 100% more sense.
In no timeline should a parent that murders 3 of their kids be allowed to walk.
Twice an Aggie said:
That is what I was referring to. I was taking that as the holdout might be a not guilty based on that. Everyone else thinks they have passed reasonable doubt but one keeps holding onto straws of any possible doubt and refusing to budge...maybe even making "what if" statements of hypothetical and ignoring what reasonable cause is. Again, could be completely wrong, but just found that first instruction interesting.
I'm in agreement with you, yes. I'm just seeing people go nuts assuming that it's 11-1 for not guilty but there is literally no way anybody outside of the jury pool knows that. The true crime freaks are just assuming based on how Reddingtton responds but he shouldn't know the current vote any more than you or I.
It may be or it may not be 11-1 for not guilty, but Reddington's response and the instructions being read in regards to "reasonable doubt" does not confirm that.
Wildmen03 said:
In no timeline should a parent that murders 3 of their kids be allowed to walk.
Well, regardless of what verdict the jury returns, she won't.
Aggie95 said:
the attorneys were allowed to read the note. The fact that the defense attorney was desperately trying to get the juror booted, means the jury is ready to acquit
I guess I don't follow, we don't know what the note said. There could be something about a specific juror that the defense attorney believes he can make a fuss about and, even if they don't get booted, sets up for an appeal.
I don't see why it has to be that there's one juror voting guilty and he wants that juror out.
Wildmen03 said:
How in the world to get 11 not guilty votes in a case like this?
Are the jurors scared of what will happen if they vote guilty?
If it was 11 guilty and one hold out that would make 100% more sense.
In no timeline should a parent that murders 3 of their kids be allowed to walk.
For the thousandth time, she won't walk in any scenario. Literally or figuratively.
People are using acquit as shorthand for "NG by reason of insanity". She's not going to be found not guilty of killing the children.
Fuzzy Dunlop said:Twice an Aggie said:
We will see. It sure seems that the judge explained passing reasonable dount but not having to be completely certain first. That would lean towards 11 guilty and 1 holdout who is on the NG side. Judge speech pointe out the state must pass the reasonable doubt threshold but not establish complete certainty. Maybe the juror is playing a what-if type game angering other jurors with the social media conspiracy theories. We will see.
If a juror is bringing in social media conspiracies, the jury should speak up and let the judge know. That is reason to declare a mistrial. The jurors are not supposed to be reading or watching anything about the trial, outside of the courtroom.
As addicted as people are to their phones and social media...this seems to be an increasingly impossible task going fwd. And female leftists especially, cannot be trusted to any degree to begin with.
Not sure how we work around it. Might soon get to the point where an AI jury would be more impartial than humans.
These same women would have easily thrown the book at this man, for being a hero and protecting women. God help us, Western women are so screwed up.
Quote:
I'm in agreement with you, yes. I'm just seeing people go nuts assuming that it's 11-1 for not guilty but there is literally no way anybody outside of the jury pool knows that.
Not entirely true. The judge may know the breakdown whether directly from the jurors themselves or the bailiffs supervising the jury overhearing loud arguments from the jury room and reporting back to the judge.
The jury has already announced it was hopelessly deadlocked. Usually the breakdown in votes is mentioned during that procedure but not always. Hopelessly deadlocked usually means more than one holdout.
Infection_Ag11 said:Wildmen03 said:
How in the world to get 11 not guilty votes in a case like this?
Are the jurors scared of what will happen if they vote guilty?
If it was 11 guilty and one hold out that would make 100% more sense.
In no timeline should a parent that murders 3 of their kids be allowed to walk.
For the thousandth time, she won't walk in any scenario. Literally or figuratively.
People are using acquit as shorthand for "NG by reason of insanity". She's not going to be found not guilty of killing the children.
Sorry, it's such a foolish and absurd concept to begin with "yeah you murdered your three children in cold blood, but you were crazy at the time so we're going to try to get you the help you need for no logical reason whatsoever" that it's hard for a lot of men to wrap their head around.
When a crazy man kills people, we all say "get the rope".
Infection_Ag11 said:Wildmen03 said:
How in the world to get 11 not guilty votes in a case like this?
Are the jurors scared of what will happen if they vote guilty?
If it was 11 guilty and one hold out that would make 100% more sense.
In no timeline should a parent that murders 3 of their kids be allowed to walk.
For the thousandth time, she won't walk in any scenario. Literally or figuratively.
People are using acquit as shorthand for "NG by reason of insanity". She's not going to be found not guilty of killing the children.
We all get it, bro. No one is misunderstanding anything here...
She's not going to get away with it, she's just going to be found not criminally responsible for strangling her 3 children to death.
Tomato, toma-to....It's still injustice.
She'll go to a mental facility until they prove that she now doesn't have what she never did in the first place and get let out in <10 years; 5 if the girlboss tiktok clowns put enough pressure on the issue.
It's possible, it just requires doing your duty as required by the court. I served on a capital murder jury a few years ago and I had no issue abstaining from social media. As far as I know, the other jurors were able to abstain as well.
Now we weren't on a nationally covered case like this, but it was huge in the area. Sequestration is the answer in a case like this.
Now we weren't on a nationally covered case like this, but it was huge in the area. Sequestration is the answer in a case like this.
Double Talkin' Jive...
Sure, I'm just pointing out that the idea that she's going to walk out of the courthouse free and clear is just incorrect. She's either going to prison forever, going to prison for a very long time, or going to a mental health institution for a very long time. The absolute earliest she'll get out in any scenario is sometime in the mid-2030s.
Infection_Ag11 said:
Sure, I'm just pointing out that the idea that she's going to walk out of the courthouse free and clear is just incorrect. She's either going to prison forever, going to prison for a very long time, or going to a mental health institution for a very long time. The absolute earliest she'll get out in any scenario is sometime in the mid-2030s.
This is what people are upset about. 4-14 years for murdering your 3 children is absolutely ridiculous.
I agree, I'm just pointing out that the sizable number of people here and on social media who believe the jury might actually find her not guilty and that she will walk away free and clear are incorrect. That is not a scenario that is on the table.
Infection_Ag11 said:
Sure, I'm just pointing out that the idea that she's going to walk out of the courthouse free and clear is just incorrect. She's either going to prison forever, going to prison for a very long time, or going to a mental health institution for a very long time. The absolute earliest she'll get out in any scenario is sometime in the mid-2030s.
She should be getting the death penalty.
I suspect that's just you being pedantic in response to people considering a relatively short stay at a psych hospital getting away with triple murder more so than most people legitimately believing that she will just go completely free.
aggiehawg said:Quote:
I'm in agreement with you, yes. I'm just seeing people go nuts assuming that it's 11-1 for not guilty but there is literally no way anybody outside of the jury pool knows that.
Not entirely true. The judge may know the breakdown whether directly from the jurors themselves or the bailiffs supervising the jury overhearing loud arguments from the jury room and reporting back to the judge.
The jury has already announced it was hopelessly deadlocked. Usually the breakdown in votes is mentioned during that procedure but not always. Hopelessly deadlocked usually means more than one holdout.
Unless Utah law is wacko, either of those scenarios would be highly improper and probably sanctionable. .
Martin Cash said:aggiehawg said:Quote:
I'm in agreement with you, yes. I'm just seeing people go nuts assuming that it's 11-1 for not guilty but there is literally no way anybody outside of the jury pool knows that.
Not entirely true. The judge may know the breakdown whether directly from the jurors themselves or the bailiffs supervising the jury overhearing loud arguments from the jury room and reporting back to the judge.
The jury has already announced it was hopelessly deadlocked. Usually the breakdown in votes is mentioned during that procedure but not always. Hopelessly deadlocked usually means more than one holdout.
Unless Utah law is wacko, either of those scenarios would be highly improper and probably sanctionable. .
Then Utah is wacko. The court officers assigned to the jury work for the court, meaning the judge. If there are issues with the jury, they are reported to the judge. Juror misconduct being the most frequent reason.
aggiehawg said:Martin Cash said:aggiehawg said:Quote:
I'm in agreement with you, yes. I'm just seeing people go nuts assuming that it's 11-1 for not guilty but there is literally no way anybody outside of the jury pool knows that.
Not entirely true. The judge may know the breakdown whether directly from the jurors themselves or the bailiffs supervising the jury overhearing loud arguments from the jury room and reporting back to the judge.
The jury has already announced it was hopelessly deadlocked. Usually the breakdown in votes is mentioned during that procedure but not always. Hopelessly deadlocked usually means more than one holdout.
Unless Utah law is wacko, either of those scenarios would be highly improper and probably sanctionable. .
Then Utah is wacko. The court officers assigned to the jury work for the court, meaning the judge. If there are issues with the jury, they are reported to the judge. Juror misconduct being the most frequent reason.
True, the judge can ask what the break is, but not which way the vote is hung. Likewise, a bailiff cannot tell the judge what he overheard from the jury room unless, as you said, it involves misconduct. For instance, he can't tell the judge they're hung 11-1 for NG.
Slicer97 said:Infection_Ag11 said:
Sure, I'm just pointing out that the idea that she's going to walk out of the courthouse free and clear is just incorrect. She's either going to prison forever, going to prison for a very long time, or going to a mental health institution for a very long time. The absolute earliest she'll get out in any scenario is sometime in the mid-2030s.
She should be getting the death penalty.
Take it up with the state of Massachusetts lol
Do we know it's a male? Just because Reddington said?
Infection_Ag11 said:
Sure, I'm just pointing out that the idea that she's going to walk out of the courthouse free and clear is just incorrect. She's either going to prison forever, going to prison for a very long time, or going to a mental health institution for a very long time. The absolute earliest she'll get out in any scenario is sometime in the mid-2030s.
I hear you, didn't mean to come off as combative or argumentative, was more trying to piggy back than anything.
The fact that that bolded part is true though, is mind blowing. In no universe should she ever have the trust of society again. At a minimum she should be in a mental institution for the rest of her life. That is still not justice for what she did in my book.
I agree
BadMoonRisin said:Infection_Ag11 said:Wildmen03 said:
How in the world to get 11 not guilty votes in a case like this?
Are the jurors scared of what will happen if they vote guilty?
If it was 11 guilty and one hold out that would make 100% more sense.
In no timeline should a parent that murders 3 of their kids be allowed to walk.
For the thousandth time, she won't walk in any scenario. Literally or figuratively.
People are using acquit as shorthand for "NG by reason of insanity". She's not going to be found not guilty of killing the children.
We all get it, bro. No one is misunderstanding anything here...
She's not going to get away with it, she's just going to be found not criminally responsible for strangling her 3 children to death.
Tomato, toma-to....It's still injustice.
She'll go to a mental facility until they prove that she now doesn't have what she never did in the first place and get let out in <10 years; 5 if the girlboss tiktok clowns put enough pressure on the issue.
yah, is she still insane? Why go to a mental facility unless forced?
Featured Stories
See All
Defense leads second-half scoring surge in A&M's 28-point win
by Olin Buchanan
29:52
12h ago
7.5k
Post Game Review: No. 10 Texas A&M 48, Arizona State 20
by Kay Naegeli
4:25
10h ago
3.2k
2-0! 12th Man reacts to four-touchdown victory
by Luke Evangelist
59:29
1d ago
2.6k