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 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 1 day 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