The lone holdout juror in the trial of Lindsay Clancy has said he "didn't have any doubts" that she was criminally responsible for killing her three children.

"Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses and what the prosecution presents, I thought it was enough proof that she knew exactly what she was doing and planned it," Michael Desronvil said in a statement to CBS News, the BBC's US partner.

The judge declared a mistrial on 4 September after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict following nearly 40 hours of deliberating.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 week ago (15 children)

Jury nullification

Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (14 children)

    Yes and that's why it was a mistrial.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (13 children)

    No, if he had any doubt at all then he should have voted with the rest of the jurors. That's how the law works. A jury is not a place to take a personal stand on a case.

    This you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (12 children)

    Yes, I think that since he had stated reasonable doubt, he should have honored that and voted with the rest of the jurors.

    Acknowledging he had the right to vote the way he did does not mean his decision is immune from criticism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (11 children)

    It's great that you have that opinion, and that is absolutely your right, however, that is not how the jury system works in America or many other countries, for what I and the designers of the system believe are very good reasons. One reason would be for not convicting people for breaking unjust laws, such as the Fugitive Slave Act. You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (10 children)

    I'm having a conversation on a forum about the case. I'm not making any legal decisions that affect this case arguing with people online who want to strip women of their rights because Lyndsey Clancy killed her kids.

    I'm not the only one who believes this juror had ulterior motives for the way he voted and that he ignored the law telling him that if he had reasonable doubt he shouldn't vote guilty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (9 children)

    And I don't disagree with any of that, and unless she is unfortunate enough to have two people like that slip through her lawyer's vetting process, it will have no long-term repercussions for her or society in general. On the other hand, having penalties for the decisions jurors make could be very far-reaching, quite possibly as far-reaching as stripping women of their rights.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    Anyone working to strip women of their rights based on this one case is doing so nefariously. This isn't a novel case, this isn't the first postpartum psychosis incident.

    It's not Lindsey Clancy's fault if bad actors use her case to attack all women.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (6 children)

    Well, then I guess we agree that at the very least this guy whose name I can't be bothered to remember or even look up is probably a shitty person and should be treated with disgust by everyone who meets him (probably the best reason to learn his name), and that if it didn't happen in this case another would have come along that the people trying to remove rights could use as a foil to their means.

    That suggests to me that focusing on this loser, or the choice he made that was entirely in his right, will be nothing more than a red herring and it would be better to focus on this case being used as an excuse to remove women's rights.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    it would be better to focus on this case being used as an excuse to remove women’s rights.

    Yep, that's why I've posted about that very thing myself.

    I also think that it is worthy to publicly push back on some of these sexist opinions that are rising from people conflating Lindsey Clancy with all women as if we are a monolith.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Absolutely fair. Hell, even Lemmy users are a pretty small, self-selected bunch and we aren't a monolith.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Hey thanks for having a back and forth with me that didn't devolve into name calling or personal digs. That was nice :)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Well, I'm a real, multi-faceted person, and I have my bad days, but I try to call out behavior and statements and avoid insults. Sometimes it's easier, and this was certainly one of them. Maybe we can argue/discuss again in the future. :D

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment