One holdout "is refusing to apply your instructions on proof beyond a reasonable doubt to allow that jury to return a verdict of not guilty."
minute read
The seventh day of deliberations in the case of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother charged with killing her three children, began with Judge William Sullivan addressing a note handed over by the jury's foreperson. Defense Attorney Kevin Reddington said the note indicated that an 11-1 split existed, with the one holdout "is refusing to apply your instructions on proof beyond a reasonable doubt to allow that jury to return a verdict of not guilty." The jury has come back twice and said they are deadlocked and cannot come to a unanimous decision.
Sullivan referenced a note from the jury that he and the parties put over to Friday morning to discuss. The prosecution said that jurors should be instructed to return to their deliberations without any further instruction or questioning. She said the note had indicated “a disagreement about how to weigh the evidence.”
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington argued that the one juror indicated in the note had lied to Judge Sullivan regarding their ability to follow his orders. He quoted a note from the foreperson, which stated in part that the juror “has made statements acknowledging doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states,” per Reddington.
“Clearly, Judge, we have a person who, under their oath, stood in front of you yesterday when you did the individual voir dire, and according to this information, under oath, looked you in the eye and lied. That juror told you that he would be able to apply the law to the facts as you asked him, and based on this note from this juror, it clearly and unequivocally indicates that they are basically 11 to one, and this person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not guilty verdict.”
He later added, “When you have a situation where you have not one but two notes that clearly indicates that this individual has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict, he is as the law states, he is not being honest with you at the sidebar. I would go so far as to reluctantly say that the individual has made a false statement under oath to this court. There has to be an issue that is not arising out of deliberations and the facts of this case, but the individual is refusing to apply your instructions on proof beyond a reasonable doubt to allow that jury to return a verdict of not guilty.”
The prosecution argued that “the note does not indicate that this juror lied to your honor when responding. The note indicates that the parties disagree on what is reasonable doubt or what doubt is and how it should be applied.”
Judge Sullivan expressed concerns, saying that case law “says the discharge of a deliberating juror is sensitive undertaking, fraught with potential error. It's to be done only in special circumstances with special precautions. A judge must take the utmost caution to avoid invading the province of the jury. That's what I'm concerned with in this at this point.”
He said that dismissal of a juror is only for “reasons personal to that juror, having nothing whatsoever to … do with the issues of the case or with the juror’s relationship with their fellow jurors.”
“In this case here, I see no showing of the need for an inquiry of this particular juror,” Sullivan said. He later added, “This is not a case that that there's any indication that the juror has refused to deliberate, or has any reason has indicated that they would not follow the law, or that they're physically suffering, or there's no note from the juror that indicates that the juror cannot or will not be able to continue deliberating, as some of the other cases talk about.”
“So, so for reasons of for that, I'm not going to do a further inquiry of this juror over the defendant's objection.”
The defense argued that Sullivan should “direct [the jury’s] attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and re-instruct them on that forcefully.”
Sullivan snapped back, “What do you want? What do you want me to do? Get a brass band? I read the instruction as written by the SJC, but the fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that. I'm not an actor. I've just given the instructions.”
Sullivan referenced a note from the jury that he and the parties put over to Friday morning to discuss. The prosecution said that jurors should be instructed to return to their deliberations without any further instruction or questioning. She said the note had indicated “a disagreement about how to weigh the evidence.”
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington argued that the one juror indicated in the note had lied to Judge Sullivan regarding their ability to follow his orders. He quoted a note from the foreperson, which stated in part that the juror “has made statements acknowledging doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states,” per Reddington.
“Clearly, Judge, we have a person who, under their oath, stood in front of you yesterday when you did the individual voir dire, and according to this information, under oath, looked you in the eye and lied. That juror told you that he would be able to apply the law to the facts as you asked him, and based on this note from this juror, it clearly and unequivocally indicates that they are basically 11 to one, and this person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not guilty verdict.”
He later added, “When you have a situation where you have not one but two notes that clearly indicates that this individual has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict, he is as the law states, he is not being honest with you at the sidebar. I would go so far as to reluctantly say that the individual has made a false statement under oath to this court. There has to be an issue that is not arising out of deliberations and the facts of this case, but the individual is refusing to apply your instructions on proof beyond a reasonable doubt to allow that jury to return a verdict of not guilty.”
The prosecution argued that “the note does not indicate that this juror lied to your honor when responding. The note indicates that the parties disagree on what is reasonable doubt or what doubt is and how it should be applied.”
Judge Sullivan expressed concerns, saying that case law “says the discharge of a deliberating juror is sensitive undertaking, fraught with potential error. It's to be done only in special circumstances with special precautions. A judge must take the utmost caution to avoid invading the province of the jury. That's what I'm concerned with in this at this point.”
He said that dismissal of a juror is only for “reasons personal to that juror, having nothing whatsoever to … do with the issues of the case or with the juror’s relationship with their fellow jurors.”
“In this case here, I see no showing of the need for an inquiry of this particular juror,” Sullivan said. He later added, “This is not a case that that there's any indication that the juror has refused to deliberate, or has any reason has indicated that they would not follow the law, or that they're physically suffering, or there's no note from the juror that indicates that the juror cannot or will not be able to continue deliberating, as some of the other cases talk about.”
“So, so for reasons of for that, I'm not going to do a further inquiry of this juror over the defendant's objection.”
The defense argued that Sullivan should “direct [the jury’s] attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and re-instruct them on that forcefully.”
Sullivan snapped back, “What do you want? What do you want me to do? Get a brass band? I read the instruction as written by the SJC, but the fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that. I'm not an actor. I've just given the instructions.”
Sign in to comment
Powered by The Post Millennial CMS™ Comments
Join and support independent free thinkers!
We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.
Remind me next month
To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy
Comments