88
Clancy juror says holdout didn't show 'single piece of evidence' explaining vote (abcnews.com)
submitted 15 hours ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A juror in the trial of Lindsay Clancy is sharing new details about what he said happened inside the jury room that led to a mistrial in the case of the Massachusetts woman facing first-degree murder charges for the 2023 deaths of her three young children.

Nick Dargie, one of the three men on the 12-person jury, told ABC News' Aaron Katersky that the lone holdout juror who prevented a unanimous verdict did not show any evidence explaining his vote.

"There was several times I would ask him to show us evidence or, you know, describe a witness testimony that helped to prove what he was saying, and ... he couldn't," Dargie, 25, said in an interview Wednesday.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -8 points 14 hours ago (1 child)

IANAL but the article suggests a juror’s vote is not unassailable, which is why this ended in mistrial (there was something wrong with the trial) rather than a hung jury.

A jury’s vote is unassailable, so if 12 people unanimously say “not guilty because that guy deserved it” or “not guilty because that shouldn’t be illegal” that verdict has to be accepted.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 18 points 13 hours ago

    Hung jury is the reason for the mistrial. A mistrial is any trial that ends invalidly before a final verdict.

    A single juror's vote can only be challenged for a small number of reasons, like disregarding the judge's orders, doing outside research, discussing the case outside the jury room, and curiously, mentioning jury nullification.

    This is where the details of Lone Juror's idea come into play. Unless it's something wacky like "it's possible aliens did it" or "demonic possession", Lone Juror would not likely be challenged.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent