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
[–] 1 point 1 week ago* (3 children)

I suspect you're arguing because you side with the juror, not because the logic is sound, and I have a problem with that, but let's stick with the facts.

But if he wasn't vetted out, it's nobody's fault except the lawyers'.

He perjured himself, as in, he lied, on purpose or otherwise. Lawyers aren't mind readers or psychics, you can't place complete blame on them because someone else commited a crime to get on the jury and they didn't catch it.

The system did exactly what it's designed to do, it mistrialed because a juror didn't follow the rules

The problem I have, and most people should have, is that because of one juror who didn't follow the rules we are extending the time, suffering, cost, and damages that shouldn't have happened.

They should have stricken him during the vetting process.

Yes! They should have, and because the juror SNUCK into the jury unfairly, it wasn't a fair trial.

He IS the problem. He started it. He made ALL of this worse. Not the lawyers, who could have done better, not the system, designed in the way that it is, not even the woman who murdered her children.

This is already an incredibly terrible thing, but people like the juror who lie to get what they want make it worse for everyone else.

Defending the person who commited a crime to make things worse because he wasn't caught early enough is just asinine.

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

    I'm defending the system. He'll have his day in court too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    No.

    You were focused on the juror and now that it's an indefensible position to side with you're saying that wasn't the case.

    The system did exactly what it's designed to do, it doesn't need defending.

    The juror should not have been a juror, according to the system, and you haven't acknowledged that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago

    You clearly haven't been paying attention. The entire argument I'm making is you can't force a juror to come to a particular verdict. If you could, you no longer have an impartial jury.

    Did he break his oath? Yes. That's a separate issue. A juror must be free to come to any conclusion of their own mind, or else it isn't a fair trial, full stop.

    I've said all I mean to say. Go ahead and have the last word or twist my meaning if it makes you feel better.

  • source
  • parent