re: Foreperson in the Clancy trial sent a note asking for 1 juror removed

quote:

---

Ordinarily, that would probably mean that they were 11-1 for guilt, but the fact that the defense lawyer was screaming for removal obviously means that HE thinks it's 11-1 for not guilty.

Clearly he knows more about it than we do.

---

If that note really said exactly what's being reported, then it's tough to imagine how it would mean 11-1 in favor of guilt. If they're saying only one juror is dissenting and that this person "won't follow the rules of reasonable doubt", then that suggests to me that the rest of them are going with reasonable doubt (innocent), and one is not, and they're upset that this person won't agree. Hopefully I'm wrong and reading that backwards, but I don't get that impression.

This makes me mad for two reasons: First is obviously that it's outrageous that anyone, let alone 11 of the 12 jurors could find her innocent. But I also think it's bull crap that they're trying to get this juror removed on the basis that he/she won't follow the rules. Who says this juror is not following the rules, simply because the person doesn't agree with the others? Aren't jurors supposed to think for themselves? No one can have a dissenting opinion without being accused of not understanding or following rules?

What reasonable doubt is there? We know she did it. The only question is whether she was insane or not (which shouldn't be allowed as a defense in my book), but there is no indication that she was insane. She had mental problems, but not psychosis. You can't just kill your kids and say "I was depressed and stuff". That's not nearly a defense for murder.