re: The one juror in the Clancy case

You can catch your lazy arse up at next trial

quote:

---

I am not defending a not guilty vote. I believe the woman should be sterilized. But, from what I have read on Massachusetts law, the prosecution had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she was not "insane." I don't know how anyone could be expected to meet that burden of proof when there is even the slightest evidence of mental disturbance, especially today, when everyone is on antidepressants,

---

The legal definition of insanity is very different from the clinical definition. Legally she just had to be able to distinguish right from wrong and she's sane.

Jeffrey Dahmer was legally sane. I can't imagine any shrink worth their salt saying he was clinically sane.

quote:

---

Do we know it was 11-1 not guilty? Or was it a hold out for first degree v manslaughter or another lesser responsive verdict

---

Good question. I could see the defense attorney calling manslaughter a win vs murder and being mad that 1 jury member wouldn't agree to it.

I'm not going to argue with you because I don't want to be accused of excusing this woman's behavior. Again, at the very least, no matter what her motive was, she should be sterilized.

I am not debating the legal definition of insanity. I do not know how it is defined in Massachusetts. I am only saying that having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is not insane (as defined by the State of Massachusetts), seems like an impossibly high hurdle to me in a situation where a person has sought mental health treatment recent to the criminal act.

This is different than an affirmative defense where the defense would have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she was insane.

American Hero. Protect at all costs!

Advice to juror in question....

Move to rural Alabama.

You'll be safe

quote:

---

Those other 2 guys must be whiney faggoty bitches

---

Well, it was in Massachusetts, so....

quote:

---

I’m not sure when the judge instructed the jury on this—I saw a recording, but it had to have been sometime today—but he specifically instructed them to not mention a vote tally on any potential further notes. So clearly, the note yesterday afternoon told the judge it was 11-1 at least.

Might have even mentioned or alluded to who the 1 was. Although I’ve heard some defense attorneys talk about how a big part of their job is to relate to and sort of “bond” with the jury. Most said that after this long, it would be easy for Redd—-or any experienced defense attorney—to figure out who the 1 was based on body language/facial expressions. Thought it would be pretty obvious. Speculation, of course.

---

Then the judge “let it slip” (probably intentionally) by referring to the sole dissenting juror as “he”

For average, reasonable dudes, the last 18 months or so might be the most radicalizing of the last 50 years