3
- 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 9:14 am to lance814
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:14 am to lance814
Problem is Mass. law.
In the Carly Gregg case here, defense had to prove she was insane.
In Mass., the state has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE doubt she is NOT insane. Very hard.
Also, McNaughton is not followed in Mass.
In the Carly Gregg case here, defense had to prove she was insane.
In Mass., the state has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE doubt she is NOT insane. Very hard.
Also, McNaughton is not followed in Mass.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:14 am to lance814
quote:
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.
Pretty sure the judge cannot actually do that.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:15 am to prplhze2000
quote:
In Mass., the state has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE doubt she is NOT insane. Very hard.
That is just a wild standard that feels like the exact opposite of what it should be.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:19 am to DustInTheWind
quote:
Even if she’s found not guilty she’ll be in a mental institution for decades.
She's obviously mentally ill (all murderers are). However, they've already determined she's not insane.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:21 am to DustInTheWind
quote:
Even if she’s found not guilty she’ll be in a mental institution for decades.
Why?
If we are legitimately saying the only reason she did this was PPD, she should be released once the PPD is no longer present. Which logically she would no longer have it right now. Just let her walk out the front door with her scummy lawyer.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:21 am to LNCHBOX
defense attorney should face consequences for jury intimidation. don't exactly know grounds for that in Mass law but outing to the world that you've got 11-1 and trying to get him removed is unprecedented. unbelievable amount of pressure for 1 man to face, hope he holds out
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:26 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Pretty sure the judge cannot actually do that
He can’t remove them on their interpretation of reasonable doubt, but can if he’s stating there’s reasonable doubt, I’m voting guilty, and I’m not deliberating any further. It’s very rare a juror is removed once deliberation starts and this discussion would never take place in open court.
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 9:27 am
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:27 am to lance814
quote:
but can if he’s stating there’s reasonable doubt, I’m voting guilty, and I’m not deliberating any further.
How's he going to do that without essentially inserting himself into the deliberations? That's a big no no, is it not?
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:34 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
How's he going to do that without essentially inserting himself into the deliberations? That's a big no no, is it not
By addressing them all together and rereading the juror instructions which is what he did.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:37 am to ShrimperDan
quote:I can assure you this won't happen.
Just let her walk out the front door
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:37 am to lance814
quote:
By addressing them all together and rereading the juror instructions which is what he did.
He's already done that. How would he be able to know the juror holding out had reasonable doubt and was still holding out?
You want him to make a decision that would require he know actual specifics about the deliberations. So again, how are you wanting the judge to be able to determine that the holdout's doubt are unreasonable?
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:43 am to TideCPA
quote:
Just let her walk out the front door
I can assure you this won't happen.
I know, but logically (if you buy into their logic) they should.
If she did it because of PPD, and she no longer has it, why should she be institutionalized at all?
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:44 am to TideCPA
quote:
quote:Just let her walk out the front doorI can assure you this won't happen.
Yeah because she can’t walk
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:46 am to Carolina_Tiger
quote:
defense attorney should face consequences for jury intimidation. don't exactly know grounds for that in Mass law but outing to the world that you've got 11-1 and trying to get him removed is unprecedented. unbelievable amount of pressure for 1 man to face, hope he holds out
Wait so it’s 11-1 in favor of not guilty?
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:47 am to ShrimperDan
What's the precedent for keeping her committed even if she's diagnosed bipolar? We have millions walking the streets with that diagnosis.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:47 am to Oilfieldbiology
That's what it sounds like. What in the frick
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:48 am to ShrimperDan
quote:
Just let her walk out the front door
I can assure you this won't happen.
I know, but logically (if you buy into their logic) they should.
If she did it because of PPD, and she no longer has it, why should she be institutionalized at all?
You're missing the joke
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:48 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
He's already done that. How would he be able to know the juror holding out had reasonable doubt and was still holding out? You want him to make a decision that would require he know actual specifics about the deliberations. So again, how are you wanting the judge to be able to determine that the holdout's doubt are unreasonable?
Defense literally just said it in court the holdout isn’t applying the rule of reasonable doubt during deliberation. Notice I didn’t say correctly, because that is up for each jurors interpretation. They’re implying the juror is saying there’s reasonable doubt, but still not willing to vote as a person with reasonable doubt should. Judge said he read jurors instructions again and he’s not discussing it further. Going to be a hung jury now.
You’re fixated on the judge’s determination of (un)reasonable and not reading what I’m saying. If the juror is saying in juror’s deliberation “I believe there’s reasonable doubt, but I’m not voting as such, and am not willing to deliberate” he is willingly not following juror instructions. This is actually what the defense is implying.
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 9:53 am
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:51 am to lance814
quote:
Defense literally just said it in court the holdout isn’t applying the rule of reasonable doubt during deliberation.
They are just guessing.
quote:
You’re fixated on the judge’s determination of (un)reasonable and not reading what I’m saying. If the juror is saying in juror’s deliberation “I believe there’s reasonable doubt, but I’m not voting as such, and am not willing to deliberate” he is willingly not following juror instructions. This is actually what the defense is implying.
You're the one with a hang up
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:51 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
Wait so it’s 11-1 in favor of not guilty?
That's what everyone is assuming due to context clues
Only the jury knows that for certain
Page 7 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News