145
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
102 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
[–] 5 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Thank you, I'm going crazy in here watching stupid people pull shit out of their ass so confidently.

Like the idiot you responded to who thinks that there aren't any legal rules to being a Juror. How are people upvoting such a stupid statement?

Yeah, a Juror has the ability to choose a verdict, and cannot be coerced into a specific verdict. However, deliberately choosing an unfitting verdict, such as insisting on guilt without evidence or while admitting reasonable doubt, is a violation of the oath you take as a Juror, and it can lead to being perjured.

The Juror in question admitted that there was reasonable doubt in the case, but refused to drop his guilty verdict. This was a direct violation of the law. You cannot legally acknowledge reasonable doubt, but insist on a guilty verdict. There are actually "wrong" choices by a juror. There was an attempt to remove this juror from the case because of his illegal conduct, but the judge decided letting the jury deadlock a third time for a mistrial would be better for some reason.

It's important to note that if it were not for this openly MAGA, law-breaking juror, the rest of the jurors were locked in on acquittal because the evidence points to a psychotic episode, and not a deliberate act of malice.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago

    Part of how jury nullification works is that jurors can't be held accountable for the verdict. They can in theory be charged with perjury if it can be proven they lied under oath during voir dire, but that's more of a threat than a reality. In a civil case it's possible for a judge to set aside a verdict if there's clearly no evidence, but that's not possible for criminal charges.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent