1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Clancy Jury Is At 11 - 1?
Posted on 9/4/26 at 7:54 am to Mo Jeaux
Posted on 9/4/26 at 7:54 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
The burden is still on the defense to show some primary facie evidence of insanity though
Isn't the prima facie evidence just
quote:
raise their hands and say “I’m insane”.
No medical professional had diagnosed her with postpartum psychosis leading up to the killings. She doctor shopped, declined assistance, checked herself out of inpatient facilities, then plotted for her husband to leave so she could strangle her kids one by one. Which, conveniently, is all explained by psychosis. Now the burden is on the prosecution to prove she was *not* insane at the time she did all that. But being noncompliant, hiding your symptoms, and murder are all symptoms of psychosis! Easy peasy, get out of jail free card.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:00 am to ronniep1
quote:
The defense attorney ranted about "One juror who REFUSES to follow your instructions about reasonable doubt." No indication as to which way the jury is leaning. I hope it is guilty, as opposed to the insanity plea.
This makes me think it’s 11-1 guilty. If it truly is that the one holdout is not following the court’s instruction regarding reasonable doubt, it makes me think that they are holding the State to a higher burden of beyond all doubt.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:01 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Isn't the prima facie evidence just quote:raise their hands and say “I’m insane”.
No, it isn’t.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:04 am to ElPresidenteGrande
quote:
This makes me think it’s 11-1 guilty. If it truly is that the one holdout is not following the court’s instruction regarding reasonable doubt, it makes me think that they are holding the State to a higher burden of beyond all doubt.
Most believe it’s the exact opposite. The jury is unwilling to vote NGRI, but believes there’s reasonable doubt. The defense certainly does. Only the jurors should know.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:08 am to lance814
quote:
Most believe it’s the exact opposite.
I very well could be wrong. We shall see today.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:09 am to lance814
So the judge is interviewing the one juror today. Is that not jury tampering to try to influence a juror ?
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:10 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
No, it isn’t.
Ok, let’s use a hypothetical. Let’s say this case was in Louisiana and all 12 jurors thought there was reasonable doubt that she may or may not have had a psychotic event. How are the jurors instructed to vote?
Then answer the same question Mass.
If your answers aren’t different, you’re misunderstanding jurors instructions. That’s why reasonable doubt was reread and the defense was pissed and wants to remove that juror. He believes there’s reasonable doubt juror believes there’s reasonable doubt and still won’t vote not guilty
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 9:06 am
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:14 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
No, it isn’t.
Then what is the bar? Because MA law, apparently, puts the burden on the state to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt once NGRI is entered:
quote:
Once the defense raises the issue of the accused’s mental state at the time of the crime, prosecutors bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible, said Daniel Medwed, a university distinguished professor of law.
And according to him, you don't even need a diagnosis for it to apply:
quote:
In Massachusetts, the defense may apply when a person’s mental condition prevents them from understanding or controlling their actions at the time of an alleged crime, including during an episode of psychosis. A qualifying mental disease or defect also need not fit a specific medical diagnosis.
What requires anything besides the defense to say "Lindsay was insane at the time due to PPP, therefore not responsible?" Sure the prosecution still has to convince the jury of wrongdoing, but MA's bar seems to be unreasonably high.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:17 am to Make It Rayne
quote:
So the judge is interviewing the one juror today. Is that not jury tampering to try to influence a juror ?
No, he's refusing to.
Defense has outted it that its one of the 3 males that is the holdout.
ETA: Just laying into the Defense attorney now... he's pissed that Defense is claiming that Judge isn't doing enough and directing the Jury what to do.
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 8:21 am
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:21 am to ronniep1
Man I’m in a dealership right now waiting for my truck and they have a show on CBS where some fricking panel is bending over backwards to defend this piece of shite
This whole thing is fricking mind blowing. I honestly can’t believe this is where we’re at as a society. Absolutely fricking disgusting
This whole thing is fricking mind blowing. I honestly can’t believe this is where we’re at as a society. Absolutely fricking disgusting
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:30 am to TheRouxGuru
I don't understand how any of this is legal.
How in the world can they be singling out a juror.
The judge better shut this down ASAP
How in the world can they be singling out a juror.
The judge better shut this down ASAP
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:31 am to Lsut81
But how does the defense know for sure?
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:33 am to tiger91
Red is full of shite. Acknowledging doubt does not mean the doubt is reasonable.
ETA Which is basically what the judge said. Judge is handling this properly IMO
ETA Which is basically what the judge said. Judge is handling this properly IMO
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 8:36 am
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:34 am to biglego
Jury is not sequestered.
You can bet they are on the phone and next door telling neighbors every day.
You can bet they are on the phone and next door telling neighbors every day.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:41 am to tiger91
quote:
But how does the defense know for sure?
Sounds like the note the foreperson sent was very detailed...
Judge had to tell them when they send notes not to give counts or details on the makeup of the sides.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:44 am to Lsut81
quote:
Sounds like the note the foreperson sent was very detailed...
I don't agree. They read the pertinent part several times and it keeps saying the juror has "acknowledged doubt." That doesn't mean the doubt is reasonable.
At this point, it needs to be a hung jury and a mistrial IMO. Good on the alleged guy for saying no to the mob of ignorant women.
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 8:44 am
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:53 am to LNCHBOX
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:03 am to GEAUXT
quote:
How in the world can they be singling out a juror.
Ultimately they can't force the guy to change how he reads the case. I would say the same even if it were a dumb woman trying to get her NGRI and the rest wanted to fry her.
Declare the mistrial and move on.
If I were the state I would scour TikTok and other platforms for compelling arguments that are accurate to the facts of the case that also have a bunch of likes and are in favor of a conviction. Sounds silly and it is, but obviously if a bunch of people agree with it then it might work better than their arguments did the first go-around that got us almost to the point of a lesser charge or even NGRI.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:11 am to TheRouxGuru
quote:
This whole thing is fricking mind blowing. I honestly can’t believe this is where we’re at as a society. Absolutely fricking disgusting
You don't like "progress"? You must be in a cult. You should be shot in the neck in front of your family for wrong think.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:13 am to ShrimperDan
quote:
Ultimately they can't force the guy to change how he reads the case. I would say the same even if it were a dumb woman trying to get her NGRI and the rest wanted to fry her.
Agreed, but the judge can speak to juror and find out if they’re willingly ignoring the instructions provided. Example: “I believe she may have had a psychotic event and didn’t know right from wrong, but I’m still voting guilty because she needs to go to jail for the rest of her life.” The judge can rule to remove the juror in that case.
This can be easily combatted by the juror if it’s states they reasonably believe she knew right from wrong and still committed the crime. Judge wouldn’t remove him in that scenario and hung jury would be the likely outcome.
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 9:18 am
Page 6 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News