2
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 trial verdict predictions
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:10 pm to DustInTheWind
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:10 pm to DustInTheWind
Please do. Because I actually looked them up, and they are not the same.
Texas: The defendant must prove that a severe mental disease left her unable to know her conduct was wrong.
Massachusetts: The defendant can be found NGRI if she lacked the substantial capacity either to appreciate that her conduct was wrong or to conform her conduct to the law.
That second part is completely absent from Texas law. The burden is also different. Insanity is an affirmative defense in Texas. In Massachusetts, once it’s properly raised, the Commonwealth must prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.
Those are plainly different standards. But sure, post whatever you found.
Texas: The defendant must prove that a severe mental disease left her unable to know her conduct was wrong.
Massachusetts: The defendant can be found NGRI if she lacked the substantial capacity either to appreciate that her conduct was wrong or to conform her conduct to the law.
That second part is completely absent from Texas law. The burden is also different. Insanity is an affirmative defense in Texas. In Massachusetts, once it’s properly raised, the Commonwealth must prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.
Those are plainly different standards. But sure, post whatever you found.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:12 pm to Klark Kent
Bigly different. She walkin.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:13 pm to ell_13
quote:
Prosecutions have a better chance at retrials than defense when they decide to retrial.
If she's found not guilty by reason of insanity, there can't be a retrial
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:13 pm to Klark Kent
Are you talking about how she’s found not guilty by reason of insanity or after she’s found guilty by reason of insanity and the process? I’m talking about the processes after the verdict. They’re the same.
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 4:14 pm
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:14 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
Bigly different. She walkin.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:17 pm to DustInTheWind
Hmmm. If your point is simply that both states can commit someone after an NGRI verdict and later release them if they’re no longer mentally ill or dangerous, then yes, broadly speaking....that part is similar.
But the processes still aren’t exactly identical. Massachusetts begins with an evaluation, a possible six-month commitment, and then annual recommitments. In Texas, the court can retain jurisdiction over someone acquitted of dangerous conduct for up to the maximum possible sentence and controls any discharge or conditional release.
More importantly, the legal standard for reaching NGRI is different, which is fairly relevant when we’re discussing whether Clancy will be convicted in the first place.
So yes, the general idea after the verdict is similar. The actual standards and procedures are not the same.
But the processes still aren’t exactly identical. Massachusetts begins with an evaluation, a possible six-month commitment, and then annual recommitments. In Texas, the court can retain jurisdiction over someone acquitted of dangerous conduct for up to the maximum possible sentence and controls any discharge or conditional release.
More importantly, the legal standard for reaching NGRI is different, which is fairly relevant when we’re discussing whether Clancy will be convicted in the first place.
So yes, the general idea after the verdict is similar. The actual standards and procedures are not the same.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:18 pm to sports101
quote:
She ain't WALKING out anywhere!
Until I see her react to a knife in her leg, I'll believe she has Ricky Bobby paralysis
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:19 pm to AirbusDawg
quote:
If she's found not guilty by reason of insanity, there can't be a retrial
They're talking about a mistrial... which allows for another trial... which favors the prosecution
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:20 pm to GRTiger
quote:
Until I see her react to a knife in her leg, I'll believe she has Ricky Bobby paralysis
Shake n bake
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:26 pm to rt3
quote:
They're talking about a mistrial... which allows for another trial... which favors the prosecution
OK, I was responding to the reply that someone had made that the prosecution should let them replace the one juror that is holding out and take their chances on a retrial. If they remove the one holdout, whom we probably think is the only guilty vote left, then she would be most likely found not guilty. If that's the case, there would be no retrial.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:27 pm to rt3
I don't think the holdout makes it past tomorrow. It sounds like the judge is going to inquire whether his charge about reasonable doubt is being abided by. That may be enough to coerce him into giving in. If not, I think he's probably replaced and the jury starts from scratch on Monday.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:27 pm to GRTiger
Wait she is paralyzed?
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:29 pm to GeneralLee
Verdict: Insane, but death penalty anyway.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:29 pm to Klark Kent
Yes. I understand. They are not identical. But in both states a judge, a prosecutor, doctors, they’re all involved into whether or not they are released. The time frames are pretty close to the same. They’re both decided every year. Both states involve the courts and the doctors.
I understand they’re not identical. I’m not here to argue whether or not they are identical. I’m here to tell you that they pretty much the same. A prosecutor is not going to let her just walk out the door in a year. People need to understand this.
I understand they’re not identical. I’m not here to argue whether or not they are identical. I’m here to tell you that they pretty much the same. A prosecutor is not going to let her just walk out the door in a year. People need to understand this.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:30 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
Wait she is paralyzed?
Yeah... from jumping out a window & landing on her dome
That was the grand finale of her suicide attempt
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:30 pm to ShrimperDan
quote:
Is it possible that the others agreed to a lesser charge and the one is holding out for full first degree murder? Kind of a middle ground and not straight up NGRI.
Possible but not as likely as an AWFL going for nullification or a divide on insane/guilty.
If there's one who wants first degree murder and 11 others are second degree/manslaughter due to diminished mental capacity, they'd be more likely to switch since she still goes to prison for a very long time.
An AWFL trying to make a political statement is going to dig in her heels. A person who firmly believes she's insane isn't going to vote guilty on a charge they believe is unjustified, any more than they would in a case where they weren't sure the cops had the right person.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:43 pm to Bestbank Tiger
Prayers to the lone juror holding out to prevent NGRI. Shame on the two (or maybe even three) male cucks that are apparently voting to potentially let this woman free at some point.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:47 pm to DustInTheWind
quote:
what’s the difference?
demographics for starters. TX is deep red. MA is not.
We believe killing your kids is evil.
They believe it's hormonal.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:47 pm to GeneralLee
quote:
Prayers to the lone juror holding out to prevent NGRI.
Do the lawyers know details of jury deliberation? I know the defense is who brought up excusing the hold out, but is that because he knows which way everyone is leaning or because a mistrial is a negative outcome for the defense?
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:53 pm to GRTiger
quote:
Do the lawyers know details of jury deliberation? I know the defense is who brought up excusing the hold out, but is that because he knows which way everyone is leaning or because a mistrial is a negative outcome for the defense?
Defense nor prosecution and probably not even the judge know which way the 11-1 is.
I read on X that challenging the juror works out either way for the defense- a heads I win, tails you lose kind of thing.
Mistrial favors the prosecution.
If defense challenges the juror and the juror stays and LC is convicted, he’s got his objection on record. If juror stays and she’s NGRI, he’s wins. He either wins or has an appeal in his pocket.
I probably explained that poorly, but you can’t find the reasoning on X.. it made sense.
Page 30 of 31
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News