Lindsay Clancy holdout juror had no doubt she deliberately killed her children
a month ago by Wren to c/wildfeed
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.
He's allowed to hold his position for any reason at all, including he doesn't agree with a defense of insanity--if that's what it was. Likely during jury selection they were asked if they held that bias, and possibly he didn't know, or possibly he lied. But, that's all part of our system. It's imperfect as every such system is.
He claims he tried to explain his reasoning but the rest wouldn't listen. That may be the failure point. If they had listened, maybe they could have persuaded him. Or, maybe they did listen at first and rejected his arguments, then wouldn't listen anymore.
We'll never know what happened in the deliberation room, but the system worked as it should. Having sat on two juries in the past, I have some faith in juries to come to a good decision. In this case, the jury failed in a way that can be accommodated. That is, it was a mistrial, so there'll be another trial.
But they added that because Desronvil would not “follow” his reasonable doubt nor offer logical reasoning for his position, they felt Clancy had not received a fair trial.
“As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence presented.”
"Admitting" that in deliberation is not binding in any way.
The only "gotcha" they can pull out is to get him to agree with the verdict. He clearly didn't and did his job admirably.
He did what he thought was right despite immense pressure to just go with the flow.
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.
On top of that, this juror lied about his criminal past in order to be selected for the jury. He should have been disqualified from the get go.
The only person who can determine if he had any doubt is him. The only person who can determine if his doubt is reasonable is also him. The decision of a juror is not subject to anyone else's opinion.
Not to be a dick, but:
I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence presented.
He's literally saying the opposite of "I have doubts" still here, he's saying "I have no doubts but these other people are interupting me like I do have doubts."
Now, that still seems like a dumb fucking thing to say, but he's not contradicting his doubtlessness, he's saying he's being doubted, that "as if" is very important for context.
I think that if a juror is pushing different possible theories, they have reasonable doubt.
That and the following statement from another juror:
She told NBC that Desronvil had “admitted he had reasonable doubt”
OH I see what you mean.
Yeah but in this context "reasonable doubt" is a very specific thing and "doubt" is just the concept, so, "he does not doubt that he has a reasonable doubt regarding her innocence" actually, as dumb as it sounds, could possibly be the valid interpretation of his statements.
But regardless, that second statement (from the post I replied to ykwim lol) doesn't mean "I had doubts," it means the literal opposite.
Also he could just be lying anyway, but those two OG statements quoted aren't (at least necessarily) contradictory.
"I'm not sure if she bashed his head in with a hammer, or a lead pipe, or a candlestick, but I am sure she bashed his head in."
This is a person describing three different possible theories, without admitting to reasonable doubt of criminal culpability.
Yeah agreed
On September 25, 2021, Desronvil’s 13 year old nephew called the Brockton Police and said “please come….my auntie,” before hanging up. When police arrived they found Desronvil and his wife on the front steps of the porch, with Desronvil holding his 6 month old baby. Desronvil tried to tell police that they didn’t need any help in an attempt to get them to leave, but the 13 year old nephew told police that he witnessed Desronvil hit his wife after the woman attempted to take her crying daughter from him in order to comfort her, at which point he assaulted her by grabbing his wife by the neck and throwing her into a bedroom dresser. Desronvil’s mother yelled “YOU’RE EVIL” twice at her son before he was taken away by police.
The charges were dropped several months later, but the ex-wife spoke with NBC10 Boston and said that the charges were only dropped because she was worried about losing custody of her daughter if she testified.
"I had reasonable doubt, but I don't like how it feels to challenge my own biases and I misunderstood or lied during jury selection, so no, I don't have reasonable doubt."
That's the summary of this man.
I don’t care how any juror comes to their conclusion. Religious views, merit of the facts, an apparition came to them in a dream, it doesn’t matter (except for the case of tampering). Whatever their verdict, that’s it. The fact that this guy is being scrutinized for his verdict is alarming. They go through a selection and vetting process to get on that jury. Once they are on that jury, they can come to any conclusion for any reason. They don't need to explain their verdict. It's just guilty or not guilty. The court can implore them to follow the law, but that doesn’t mean they must. Even if they perjured to get on that jury, the perjury is a separate thing in of itself and sure, charge them, but they cannot be compelled to come to any particular verdict. If they could, then trial by jury would be nothing more than window dressing for authoritarianism.
even if they perjured to get on that jury
A criminal act to get on the jury should be disqualification from serving in said jury.
I don't care what leads a juror to their conclusion either, I care that the juror is actually supposed to be a juror.
They should have stricken him during the vetting process.
After that, tough titties, can't be upset if you actually want a fair system that can't be influenced by outside forces.
If the juror didn't cooperate for other reasons, for instance, if the law was unjust or being applied unfairly, though still lawfully, you'd probably want a juror who isn't trying to be a juror.
As far as the criminal act to get on the jury, charge him. But if he wasn't vetted out, it's nobody's fault except the lawyers'.
But if he wasn’t vetted out, it’s nobody’s fault except the lawyers’.
This particular juror lied about his criminal history during jury selection. He shares culpability here.
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.
So this would work for you?
"She floats, so she's a witch, and all witches are guilty so she's guilty"
I had to look this up because that in no way "ensures a free and fair trial"..the opposite is true
A jury is required to vote based strictly on the evidence. A juror can be removed for voting on a coin flip
This guy is guilty for wearing sneakers, and you can't even question me. This is a totally perfect system and I can derail the whole case because this guys wearing sneakers
As someone who has served on a jury myself, I have a difficult time criticizing the individual decisions of jurors for cases that I'm not involved in.
Obviously, it's not a vacuum, and being the only holdout isn't a good look... But unless you're sitting there in court every single day, taking notes and deliberating, then your opinion on the choices of individual jurors is completely irrelevant imo.
Criminal court cases are extremely complex, and reading a few news articles about it is not the same as being there. Suggesting that's enough is actually kind of insulting to our justice system.
Even when I'm pretty sure I would disagree had I been in that jury... It's just impossible to know.
This is ultimately a very sad story and proof that the system failed this family over and over.
For those without time to wade through the article:
the panel was ultimately divided 11-1 in favour of finding Clancy not criminally responsible.
I'm seeing the rightoids talk about this. It doesn't seem like news, anyone care to explain why this is on my feed?
Feminism has spent the last 150+ years trying to convince society that women can be level-headed, responsible adults instead of the emotional and hysterical forever-children that they were painted as.
This caricature of uncontrolled emotionality and hysteria was the entire reasoning as to why they could have no agency and therefore could accept no responsibility. That they could not be trusted to act with logic, reason, and accountability, and that their female nature nerfed their cognitive abilities so much that they would always require male chaperones and “owners”, just like children.
With Lindsey Clancy, Women just collectively argued for the latter all over again.
I’m a leftist that’s two good shakes away from being a communist, but holy goddamn hell this argument that women are using - that she is not responsible and cannot be held accountable regardless of how clearly and intentionally she meticulously planned the killings - is rolling the argument for women’s rights all the way back, weaponizing it in the most effective possible way, and then handing it wrapped up in a gift bow directly to the political right.
She planned it. She was 100% responsible. The sooner women stop using the “hormones” excuse, the sooner we stop arming the political right.
All the jurors except for the one guy found reasonable doubt though, not just the women jurors. And the outlier guy really is a piece of work. Clancey will never be free in any event, she's paralyzed and either gonna be in jail or a mental hospital.
Men have mental health issues related to hormones too, that is not by any means something unique to women. I get what you are saying but dudes make the same case for mental incapacity/insanity.
Finally, a sane take. Thank you
Asserting that all women must be punished as a group for the actions of some is extremely sexist.
You are no leftist with views like these.
You… haven’t even understood what I wrote, have you?
I never said anything of the sort. I simply articulated what the political right will use as ammunition, and how women everywhere have handed the political right the very ammunition they intend to use.
Because the political right will point to all the female supporters of Lindsay Clancy and say, “See? They are demanding that she not be held accountable for her crimes. And if women cannot be held accountable - if they can use this “hormones” card whenever they want - they cannot be trusted with responsibility.”
And it is by that very method that the right will move mountains to roll back 150 years of genuine progress.
Be careful what you wish for. Responsibility comes with a heaping foundation of accountability, and if fathers with mental disorders can be nailed to the wall for infanticide, so should mothers. That is, after all, the basis of equality. And if we don’t implement true equality, why even call it that?
Can you please be more specific?
Yeah I mean killing someone, much less multiple people, isn't like stubbing your toe. It's kind of a process.
what a fucking tragedy.
What an evil, incompetent person. He should not be allowed to cast votes or make decisions for anyone, including himself.
Further shame on the judge for not issuing clarifying instructions when the jury reported this sociopathic fucker.
Bless him.
I might not be certain she wasn't crazy, and still don't care because she killed 3 children.
@sh.itjust.works
A catch-all world journalism community for news, reports, blogs, editorials, and whatever.
Be cool to each other. Instance rules apply.
All posts should link to a *current, *good quality blog, article, editorial, listicle, research paper, or something that can be considered "journalism."
Post title should be the article headline.
No misinformation or bigotry.
For paywalled media, please provide an archived link in the text body of the post.
Commenters who don't read the posted article may receive temporary bans. This is a community for informed discussion.
This instance has no rules against calls to violence, please don't report general wishes for violence. I will moderate direct implications of violence (i.e. I will shoot x person in the head) at my discretion.
Tag if needed:
[NSFW] and [Content Warning - x] — At your discretion.
[D/M/Y] — If the publication is older than a month. You can just tag the year if the article is more than a year old.
[Month and/or year] — For old but relevant articles. Use your best judgement.
[Conspiracy Tuesday] — Conspiracy theories/occult themes/cryptids/pseudoscience. On Tuesdays.
[E-mail required] — If an e-mail is needed to sign in.
[Archive link in post] — For paywalls and account sign-ins, link the main article in the URL, paste the archive link in the text body.
*Current means the article contains the most up to date publically available information on the subject, within reason. Older publications are welcome as long as they include a date tag.
*Good quality means the source has a good reputation for accurate journalism with a reasonably clean fact checking record.
Check out !Independent_Media@lemmy.today for independent news from around the world or !indy_news_canada@sh.itjust.works for Canadian independent publications.
All communities were created with the goal of increasing media literacy and media pluralism.
Sources posted here include:
https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/
apnews.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/international
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/us
Icon image by z0r0z on pixabay, depicting a silhouette of a world map on a paint-splattered background.
Banner image by Lucentius on pixabay, depicting crumpled newpapers.
go to feed...
@sh.itjust.works
A catch-all world journalism community for news, reports, blogs, editorials, and whatever.
Be cool to each other. Instance rules apply.
All posts should link to a *current, *good quality blog, article, editorial, listicle, research paper, or something that can be considered "journalism."
Post title should be the article headline.
No misinformation or bigotry.
For paywalled media, please provide an archived link in the text body of the post.
Commenters who don't read the posted article may receive temporary bans. This is a community for informed discussion.
This instance has no rules against calls to violence, please don't report general wishes for violence. I will moderate direct implications of violence (i.e. I will shoot x person in the head) at my discretion.
Tag if needed:
[NSFW] and [Content Warning - x] — At your discretion.
[D/M/Y] — If the publication is older than a month. You can just tag the year if the article is more than a year old.
[Month and/or year] — For old but relevant articles. Use your best judgement.
[Conspiracy Tuesday] — Conspiracy theories/occult themes/cryptids/pseudoscience. On Tuesdays.
[E-mail required] — If an e-mail is needed to sign in.
[Archive link in post] — For paywalls and account sign-ins, link the main article in the URL, paste the archive link in the text body.
*Current means the article contains the most up to date publically available information on the subject, within reason. Older publications are welcome as long as they include a date tag.
*Good quality means the source has a good reputation for accurate journalism with a reasonably clean fact checking record.
Check out !Independent_Media@lemmy.today for independent news from around the world or !indy_news_canada@sh.itjust.works for Canadian independent publications.
All communities were created with the goal of increasing media literacy and media pluralism.
Sources posted here include:
https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/
apnews.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/international
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/us
Icon image by z0r0z on pixabay, depicting a silhouette of a world map on a paint-splattered background.
Banner image by Lucentius on pixabay, depicting crumpled newpapers.
go to feed...
He didn't have any doubts, but he had doubts.
Let's see what the other jurors said....
save