158
Clancy juror says holdout didn't show 'single piece of evidence' explaining vote (abcnews.com)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
123 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
[–] 37 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I don't know any particulars about this specific case because I did not follow it. But that being said, he doesn't have to justify his vote in my opinion. There's a reason we have a jury of multiple people. The entire system was designed specifically for this possibility to arise to put a check on the possibility of mob mentality.

I don't know if he made the right call. I'm just glad that he has the right to make the call of his conscious in this system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 12 hours ago (1 child)

    The way jury instructions work it's pretty hard to not justify your vote unless you have no intention of following the instructions. The guilty or not guilty decision is usually phrased in several yes or no questions. If you're answering one differently than 11 other people, there's a reason.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    Might be a reason, but that doesn't mean you have to divulge it. That's the whole reason a jury works; each juror can come to their own conclusion. Tautologically that requires them to be able to decide differently than the rest of the group.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 19 hours ago* (2 children)

    Fun fact: There are legal rules for being on a jury, your "opinion" notwithstanding.

    The misogynistic MAGA activist on the Jury whom you are praising admitted that he had doubts on her guilt, but stuck with his guilty verdict anyway. That isn't just illegal, it's unconstitutional.

    You cannot acknowledge the constitutional requirement for innocence, and then insist on guilt anyway while under oath as a Juror. It's perjury.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    First of all, didn't praise him. Seems like you missed the multiple times in my response I pointed out I wasn't making comment on the correctness of his decision. Whether you just missed it or are deliberately ignoring it for the sake of getting to be a dick online, I can't tell.

    Second, I dont know what he did or didn't say (I didn't follow the case, remember?), that's his fault for saying anything about his decision. In fact, that's what my entire post hinged on; the concept that a juror does not and should not be forced to divulge their reasoning. The ability for a juror to disagree with the group is what makes a jury work at all.

    Whether or not he committed perjery in this instance is not relevant to my post, which was more a comment on how a juror must be free to disagree with the jury otherwise the whole thing falls apart.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent