So the Clancy trial ended in a mistrial.
11-1
One dude would not concede on the "not guilty" verdict.
11-1
One dude would not concede on the "not guilty" verdict.
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
2
@Tony because you're supposed to vote according to the law, and if there was any reasonable doubt...
@subnetter
Sounds to me like like the law wasn't applied, at least according to AI:
"The weird part is what the foreperson reportedly said about the holdout. According to the defense’s account of the foreperson’s note, he:
“has made statements acknowledging doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states.”
That matters because the prosecution had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy was criminally responsible—not merely that she killed the children, which was undisputed. If the holdout genuinely acknowledged reasonable doubt about her criminal responsibility but still insisted on a guilty verdict, then he was arguably refusing to apply the law."
Sounds to me like like the law wasn't applied, at least according to AI:
"The weird part is what the foreperson reportedly said about the holdout. According to the defense’s account of the foreperson’s note, he:
“has made statements acknowledging doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states.”
That matters because the prosecution had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy was criminally responsible—not merely that she killed the children, which was undisputed. If the holdout genuinely acknowledged reasonable doubt about her criminal responsibility but still insisted on a guilty verdict, then he was arguably refusing to apply the law."
Replies
0
No replies yet.