Defense attorney Kevin Reddington appears to be moving from zealous advocacy to virtual stalking in the Lindsay Clancy case. Reddington is seeking phone records, surveillance, and criminal records of Michael Desronvil, the now-identified juror who held out in the 11-1 hung jury decision. Reddington’s demand follows his unprofessional attack on the juror on the courthouse steps after the trial.
In his filing, Kevin Reddington seeks to question Desronvil after reviewing his records to see whether he lied on his juror questionnaire, violated court rules by using his cellphone in the jury room, and failed to pay attention during jury deliberations.
The demand is highly unusual. Occasionally, defense counsel will raise later-discovered information on possible juror misconduct to challenge a criminal conviction. We discussed juror misconduct allegations in high-profile cases involving Ghislaine Maxwell, Roger Stone, and Derek Chauvin.
The First Circuit overturned the sentence of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev due to juror bias. Nevertheless, I have been critical of judges who turn a blind eye to juror bias, including false answers on jury forms.
However, most such cases do not result in overturned convictions, as shown in the Maxwell, Stone, and Chauvin cases.
What is different here is that there was no conviction and a new trial is likely to be scheduled. Reddington has been demanding that the Court declare his client acquitted, a move that would contravene both precedent and logic.
Moreover, Reddington himself has shown the danger of this course. Reddington undermined the filings after his unhinged attack on this juror after the trial. After fueling the rage against this juror (who had to go into hiding with his wife), Reddington is seeking the assistance of the Court to continue to pummel and punish a juror who had the temerity to reject his arguments in court.
It is also a slippery slope. Will Judge William Sullivan allow both sides to look at all of the phone records of all of the jurors as well as delve into their backgrounds?
If the court were to open up these deliberations, it could result in a cascading disaster. Some jurors suggested they viewed the case as a vehicle for sending a message as part of a movement supporting mothers like Clancy. That is also a concerning element in the jury deliberation that could lead to demands for questioning from the prosecution.
My past criticism of Reddington followed positive comments about his performance at trial. I felt that he did a better job than the prosecution until the very end when his summation was rambling and confusing. However, I felt his attack on the juror crossed the line for counsel. As a criminal defense attorney, I would never have contemplated such a reckless act. In an age of rage where people are routinely doxxed and harassed, it was both irresponsible and dangerous.
It is not uncommon for counsel to ask to question or poll jurors during or immediately after a trial. Reddington attacked this juror in the courtroom and even suggested that he was prejudiced against disabled individuals.
The combination of Reddington’s attacks in front of the courthouse and these new measures would send a chilling message to jurors in the next trial. It asks the court to join the mobbing of his holdout.
It sends a disturbing message to future jurors in high-profile cases that anonymity means nothing when you stand against the will of the majority. Imagine if this juror was the only holdout against conviction. Twelve Angry Men would have been a bit less inspiring if Henry Fonda were hauled first before the public and then the Court for his refusal to convict.
However, I have also been critical of Judge Sullivan, whom I also complimented throughout the trial for his skill and rulings. I was gobsmacked that Sullivan did not issue an immediate public rebuke of Reddington for attacking this juror.
Judge Sullivan will now have to address these issues in the upcoming hearing. He should make fast work of these latest motions. The prosecution is expected to seek a new trial. If so, the greatest concern may be a rogue counsel rather than a rogue juror.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.“
Jury intimidation. Jury tampering. If this is allowed to go down, the American Jury system is DOA. Any citizen can legitimately refuse jury duty for fear of danger to self and family if he bucks the system and the pre-ordained verdict.
You are just making things up. There was no “preordained” verdict. At first, several of the jurors wanted to convict, but after reviewing the evidence and the jury instructions and discussing the case, they admitted that there was reasonable doubt that she was in her right mind and in control of her actions—including the holdout.
The holdout is under attack because he refused to follow the judge’s instructions after admitting he had reasonable doubt and refused to deliberate after the judge ordered the jury to keep discussing the case.
The perfect Democrat lawyer, mob rule when the legal process doesn’t go your way. Tell you what, we will trade you acquittal of the murderer of three dead innocent babies for a release of Derek Chauvin from his wrongful conviction. What a deal, clock is ticking.
Reddington should be disbarred for jury intimidation and tampering.
IMO, if we call Clancy 11/12ths innocent, the remaining 1/12 guilty is enough to hang her.
How much of all this simply is groundwork for the soon-to-be malpractice lawsuit by Lindsay Clancy against her doctors … maybe with 1/3 going to Reddington?
If the holdout juror decides to shoot Reddington, he should claim that an auditory hallucination told him to do so. Justice at last.
As the Babylon Bee said, you can now get awaycm with any murder if you say you were sad.
Quick OT-Do not respond to this, just wanted y’all to know about it so that you can look it up on your own.
“Kamala Harris seeks to boost progressive Abdul El-Sayed in key Michigan Senate race.”
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/michigan/articles/2026-09-22/kamala-harris-seeks-to-boost-progressive-abdul-el-sayed-in-key-michigan-senate-race
(also, non related, the man shot by ICE yesterday was NOT “shot in the neck” as Left media broadcast; he was shot in the back, above one of his shoulder blades.)
The only solution is the immediate disbarment of Attorney Reddington.
Why immediate? There is due process for attorneys.
Kevin,
My name is Jerry Clyde Hornbuckle, son of Clyde, grandson of Thomas and Florence Hornbuckle. The latter originally came from Prospect, TN, then moved to Clearwater, FL, after the great Depression hit. I grew up in Clearwater, attended High school in Ft Lauderdale, College in Gainesville, and then worked as a rocket scientist all over the Southwest. I now am retired in Prescott Valley, AZ. If you can contact me, I’d like to hear more about you. Thank you if you respond
Reddington should be disbarred and charged with stalking and defaming Desronvil.
Could the Mass. bar use its knowedge of Reddington’s attemptempted extortion against a former client as character evidence against him now for attempting to extort an acquittal vote from the hold -out juror?
Anything is possible, hornbuckle
Why would anyone agree to be on a jury when you’re hunted down by either side? Where is the judge to stop this travesty? Why don’t we admire people for standing up to their convictions instead of smearing them or kill them? Are these defense lawyers working pro bono and don’t want to lose more money — even at the cost to our judicial system?! Something is askew.
Dear Mr. Turley, it appears to me that Mr. Reddington was overconfident of a not guilty result. When that did not happen, he resorted to attacking the lone holdout juror. I am very thankful for the holdout as Lindsey Clancy murdered her three children and should not be allowed back into society. I had three children under three and a half years, and yes, I had some very dark days myself. However, I put myself aside and concentrated the three I brought into the world. The time goes so fast and those pre-school days went by in a blur. I hope that we, as a civil society will always remember the Clancy children. This remembrance could take many different forms: calling on young moms in our circle of family and friends, volunteering for nursery duty at the local church or offering to give Mom an afternoon away from the children.
There is a duty we have in parenting — keep our children safe. We are to also guide them and love them. While there might be an underlying reason for the Clancy going ‘mad’, there are three children who suffered by her hands. There is a toll to be paid.
Your great comment shows a level of understanding and compassion that few people possess now. However, I don’t believe Clancey would ever have been allowed back into society based on a jury verdict of “not guilty” since she admitted to killing her children. I think (but am not 100% certain since I have never practiced criminal or any other kind of law in Massachusetts) that the laws under which she was tried would have only allowed a verdict of not guilty of murder in the first degree due to insanity. I believe the Jury was also instructed on second degree murder and involuntary manslaugher. She most likely would have spent many years, if not the rest of life, in an institution of some sort. I think Mr. Turley could clear this up and wish he would.
Reddington failed and he’s a sore loser.
Reddington succeeded brilliantly.
The job of defense counsel is to prevent his client from being convicted.
Clancy was not convicted.
Reddington did his job and succeeded.
Reddington may be doing something unusual, but nothing illegal.
He is simply doing his job by providing a zealous defense for his client. There is no doubt that Desronvil has a criminal record, and he obviously did not disclose this on his Confidential Jury Questionnaire which was submitted under penalty of perjury. He committed a crime by failing to disclose his past arrest record and court orders against him.
As a criminal defense lawyer himself, Turley should be praising Reddington for his zealous defense of his client,.
Instead Turley plays to the MAGA mob with this completely unwarranted hit piece.
Except for the fact that the left seems to beleive there is no such thing as a crime – atleast not by someone identified with the left.
There is no left right/MAGA issue here.
Redington does not appear to have done anything illegal – but hew is seeking to have the courts do something unconstitutional.
No the holdout does not have a criminal record – he has not been convicted of anything. A past arrest is not a conviction.
Whether he committed perjury depends on the questions asked. While I doubt included asking about past arrests or civil restraining orders as
those are generally questions you can not be asked. But it is possible that he lied – if that is clear then he should be charged and convicted.
As should Jurors who openly admit trying to get on to this jury to acvquit Clancy and advance a cause. All Jurors are required to swear that they have not prejudged a case and will only use the evidence presented in court. Any juror that admits after the fact that they had decided the case before the trial committed perjury and should be prosecuted.
Regardless false statements under oath should be prosecuted – and jury questionaires are under oath.
One of the HUGE problems here is that going after the hold out accomplishes nothing legally.
a conviction requires a unanimous verdict by 12 jurors. an acquital requires a unanimous verdict by 12 jurors.
Neither of those can happen no. Ex post facto disqualifying the hold out does not convert this to an 11-0 acquital.
If the prosecution choses to retry this there will be a new trial. PERIOD.
Efforts to go after the current jury arfe just efforts to intimidate future jurors.
“He is simply doing his job by providing a zealous defense for his client. ”
No he is not DOING his job – he DID his job. The result was a hung jury – he can try to negotiate with the prosecution to get a new trial.
Seeking to violate the constitutional rights of jurors that did not vote as he liked requires that he provide the evidence of probable cause required to do so. Thus far he has not.
“There is no doubt that Desronvil has a criminal record”
False – he has no convictions.
“he obviously did not disclose this on his Confidential Jury Questionnaire which was submitted under penalty of perjury.”
If he actually committed perjury – then he should be porosecuted – as should the 4 jurors who admitted in TV interviews that they prejudged the case. They swore under oath that they had not as a requirement to get on the jury.
Whether Desronvil committed perjury depends on the actual questions. I doubt the jury questionaire asks about arrests that did not lead to convictions or civil matters. But if it did and he lied then he should be prosecuted.
“As a criminal defense lawyer himself, Turley should be praising Reddington for his zealous defense of his client,.”
There are rules of ethics and of conduct that defense attorney’s must abide by.
Turley has praised Reddington for many of his actions.
Honestly getting a hung jury in this case is a major defense victory, foir which Reddington deserves credit.
My guess at the moment is there will be a very favorable plea deal for Clancy shortly.
The prosecution is highly unllikely to want a retrial when it is clear that getting 12 jurors to convict is going to be very hard.
The defense is not going to want ot gamble on even the small possibility fo a serious conviction if there is a reasonable offer on the table.
Outside of a few extremists most of the public will buy a guilty plea to a significantly lessor charge.
Regardless this is not a MAGA issue – or it should not be.
As usual John Say is bloviating about matters of which he has no knowledge.
He says he DOUBTS that potential jurors are not asked about prior arrests, criminal charges or court orders against them, because in his words, “those are generally questions you can not be asked”.
Well, here is a copy of the Massachusetts Confidential Jury Questionnaire:
https://www.mass.gov/doc/confidential-juror-questionnaire/download
Note the section entitled “YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE LAW”.
It requires answers to the following questions:
Have you ever been arrested?
Have you ever been charged with a crime?
Have you ever been convicted of a crime?
Have you ever been served with a court order?
If Desronvil had been truthful he would have answered yes to all of these with the exception of the conviction question.
If he had been truthful, the defense would undoubtedly questioned about his record at voir dire and almost certainly have dismissed him as a juror.
Since he was not dismissed we can reasonably assume that he lied.
Please note that it is not possible for the defense to do a background check before voir dire.
The procedure in Massachusetts is as follows.
The people called for jury duty are required to show up at the court before 8:30am. They fill out the Confidential Juror Questionnaires which are then collected and photocopied by the staff. The staff then distributes the paper copies of the questionnaires to the attorneys of the prosecution and defense. They do not get digital copies or lists. Everything is on paper, and every piece of paper is uniquely identified. The reason for this is that Massachusetts privacy law is very strict. The CJQ’s are not public record and cannot be disclosed outside the court. It is illegal to photograph or digitize the CJQ’s. At the end of voir dire every piece of paper must be returned to the court and destroyed as required by Chapter 234a, Section 23.
The paper copies of CJQ’s from the jury pool are physically handed to the attorneys and within minutes the judge enters and the day’s proceedings begin with voir dire.
The CJQ’s, and the information they contain cannot be made known to anyone outside the attorney’s team, and cannot be removed from the courthouse. It is impossible to do any independent background checks. Both the prosecution and defense counsel must rely on the self-reported information in the CJQ’s.
Desronvil obviously lied in his CJQ, which is submitted under penalty of perjury. He committed a crime by submitting false information on his CJQ.
John Say is a bloviating fool who posts nonsensical fact-free comments here on a regular basis.
His comments are nothing more than uninformed speculation and outright lies.
If he had been truthful, the defense would undoubtedly questioned about his record at voir dire and almost certainly have dismissed him as a juror.
Since he was not dismissed we can reasonably assume that he lied.
That is pure supposition.
The CJC is used in Mass. DISTRICT courts. Clancy’s trial was in Plymouth SUPERIOR COURT. different court system.
stay off the Internet, OK?
Massachusetts state law mandates that the standard Confidential Juror Questionnaire MUST be used in all state trial courts in Massachusetts. The State Office of Jury Commissioner is required by law to provide the questionnaire for use in ALL state trial courts. The identical form is used in all state trial courts.
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/plymouth-trial-court-jury-information
This form is used in Plymouth County Superior Court as you can plainly see on this webpage with instructions for jurors in ALL Plymouth courts, including Superior Court.
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/plymouth-trial-court-jury-information
If you scroll down to the section about what to bring to court, there is a link to the Confidential Juror Questionnaire, with instructions to download it, complete it, and bring it to court.
The form is identical to that in the link that I previously posted.
All Massachusetts state trial courts are required by statute to use this form.
Mass. law only requires that ALL counties must provide some form of CJQ The CJQ you reference is only required in “participating counties.” Check it out.
And why do think that Plymouth County may not be “participating”??
Got any evidence, or are you just being perverse.
The webpage with instructions to jurors in Plymouth County Superior Court clearly states that they must complete and submit the CJQ that I described.
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/plymouth-trial-court-jury-information
Whether he committed perjury depends on the questions asked. While I doubt included asking about past arrests or civil restraining orders as those are generally questions you can not be asked.. This is not true. It is completely standard to ask these questions. But the claim that he “obviously” lied is pure speculation. We don’t know how he answered those questions.
Do you really think that if Desronvil had answered the the questions about arrests, charges and court orders against him truthfully, that he would have been seated?
He would have been challenged and dismissed in a heartbeat by Reddington.
Keep in mind that his arrest was for domestic violence in beating his wife. Any man who assaults a woman is immediately, and rightfully, suspected to be a misogynist.
And the defendant in this case was a woman.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that he lied in his Juror Questionnaire.
That is pure speculation. There is much doubt. There’s more doubt about that than there is about the defendant’s guilt .
It was not necessarily up to Reddington to dismiss him. What makes you think he had any peremptories left? And if he had wanted to dismiss for cause it wouldn’t be his decision, it would have been up to the judge. Even if he had a peremptory left, lawyers usually like to keep one up their sleeve in case a truly horrible juror is sprung on them right at the end.
ATS – is whether something is a MAGA issue dependent on your persona views ?
Or is there some objective criteria that determines things ?
I can not find any rational means of distinguishing when those of you on the left think something is a crime.
As best I can tell – self defense is always a crime. Anytime the police must use force to enforce the law – that is a crime.
But murdering your children is not a crime – or atleast not if you did not vote for Trump.
You making a political argument about a mother’s murder of her 3 little children is disgusting. Clearly the murdered children are just pawns to be used in your deranged crusade against your political opponents.
What mentally competant person would serve on a jury in a high profile case ever again? The defense lawyer has tampered with the future jury pool through his actions. Who would vote to convict in the future trial and potentially face this abuse? And the judge should be ashamed of himself and of the legal system for allowing the defense lawyer’s conduct to go unpunished. The defense lawyer in this case MUST BE DISBARRED. That would provide some measure of comfort to potential jurors that future lawyers would never dare to conduct themselves in such a manner. We have witnessed another stain upon an already discredited profession.
If he gets to pull up the cellphone use, I hope the prosecution plays the same card with the other 11, especially the 8, and they get to see what tiktoks they watched and how/why they were so keen to not convict befire ever going over evidence.
How long before the race card shows up?
Headline: BLACK male votes murder one
Against white woman who murdered her three defenseless children.
It’s a woman’s right to choose. Blacks need to get with the program.
Professor Turley writes, “However, most such cases do not result in overturned convictions, as shown in the Maxwell, Stone, and Chauvin cases.”
This is Massachusetts. No one contradicts the narrative. Show them the juror and they’ll show you the crime.
If Reddington is not disbarred over his jihad against a juror the judicial system in Massachusetts is irretrievably broken.
This defense attorney is dangerous. Just the fact that Redington is requesting the court look into the jurors phone records is absurd. The juror is entitled to come to whatever conclusion he deems appropriate base on the evidence he heard. A couple of the jurors have stated their conclusion was as an activist not just based in law. It also seems as two jurors who are nurses provided what some might consider expert testimony during deliberations. I didn’t se or hear everything in this case but with what I did see and hear Im with the juror that thinks Clancy should go to prison.
What used to be our Constitutional form of government is now entirely based on “misconduct” including lying, cheating, stealing and simply ignoring or, in many cases mocking, our laws. Juror misconduct is just another example of the way in which just one component of our government — our judicial system — has been turned into a complete circus of incompetence, corruption, and unqualified judges and lawyers. I know since I practiced in this cesspool (in Texas! I can’t image what it’s like in the blue states) until I finally could no longer stand it. The question is not that it is happening – that’s been obvious for some time — but what are those of us who still care going to do about it?
If Judge Sullivan were to allow a re-opening into the juror’s pre-trial questionnaire, and then allow further questioning based upon his records, it would be a horrible miscarriage of justice. Judge Sullivan would do the right thing if he were to prevent such inquiry; it would not promote any type of justice, and would cause many future people asked for jury duty to refuse to show up for any appearance while making it much more difficult to construct a fair and impartial jury of one’s peers.
Also, the right to anonymity for any members of the jury should be respected by all, including the other jurors. Their identities should never be made available through public means.
Or as an alternative, we could demand that the jurors wear black hoods in the courtroom, just like executioners typically do inside prison walls. That would help preserve their anonymity.
In their effort to stoke sympathy for a triple murderer, by any means necessary, Leftists (yet again) lie through their teeth:
“The juror also omitted a past restraining order and prior legal issues from his questionnaire. This proven willingness to lie . . .”
Can the dishonest ones prove those assertions? Of course not. Those questionnaires are *confidential*.
Once it was narrowed down who the hold out was it was just a matter of accessing public records. What is still relevant is the fact the juror omitted things that would have immediately disqualified him. Omitting those facts and the manner in which he conducted himself leads anyone to believe he is willing to lie. He already lied on his questionnaire and he brought a cell phone into the deliberations.
This shows he can be deemed a dishonest and biased juror.
the fact the juror omitted things that would have immediately disqualified him. Okay George, you got proof, facts etc? Only the judhge can make that determination. You are wholly unqualified to judge squat. You lack mental facilities. And you lie pathologically.
In addition, *none* of those allegedly “omitted things” would have disqualified him in MA.
And note how the creature imagines that repeating a lie, somehow makes it true: “He already lied on his questionnaire . . .”
GSX is back spewing inaccuracies. In my last discussion with him, he didn’t adequately support his contentions and was often wrong or lying. Then he ran away.
“What is still relevant is the fact the juror omitted things that would have immediately disqualified him.”
Even omitting a conviction wouldn’t necessarily disqualify him.
“Then he ran away.”
What gets me is this:
Lying is obviously centuries old. But this modern, Leftist type of lying is a completely different animal. Leftists lie so casually, as if it’s normal, with no sense of remorse, and with absolutely no respect for the truth.
It is a frightening, psychopathological type of lying. It is lying as a chronic habit, with zero sense that it’s wicked and destructive.
Leftists lie so casually, as if it’s normal, with no sense of remorse, and with absolutely no respect for the truth.
Which is why I have labeled Peter Shill / Enoch Poor / Svelaz / George / Wally / Sally / Esquire / Natacha / Gigi / X / anonymous TDS Troll et al sock puppets as sociopathic (anti-personality disorder). To wit:
Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental health condition in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others. People with antisocial personality disorder tend to purposely make others angry or upset and manipulate or treat others harshly or with cruel indifference. They lack remorse or do not regret their behavior.
People with antisocial personality disorder often violate the law, becoming criminals. They may lie, behave violently or impulsively, and have problems with drug and alcohol use. They have difficulty consistently meeting responsibilities related to family, work or school.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20353928
If mania doesn’t typify his online behavior then it is drug induced. I’ve stated he is paid to troll because someone with a mental disorder would eventually give up the behavior because it is no longer gratifying. That and being trounced by most of us regularly.
OTOH, the TDS Troll is following the talking points he has been provided vis a vis Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals which is why I have argued for years to not engage him.
Alinsky provides a collection of rules to guide the process. But he emphasizes these rules must be translated into real-life tactics that are fluid and responsive to the situation at hand.
Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”
Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.
Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”
https://citizenshandbook.org/rules.html
Either way, as you’ve noted, it is a pattern that Leftists follow. And they have no intentions of doing a 180 degrees turn around so as to cede.
S. Meyer, you had no idea what you were talking about yesterday. Not a single thing you tried to “argue” made any sense.
I didn’t run away. I stopped answering your nonsensical BS.
Then, once again. You prove your stupidity.
“Even omitting a conviction wouldn’t necessarily disqualify him.”
Yes it would disqualify him. Because omitting a conviction would be he LIED on his questionnaire if.
In the context of Massachusetts law (which governs the high-profile Lindsay Clancy trial), a person is only statutorily disqualified from jury service due to criminal history if they have been convicted of a felony within the past seven years, face a pending felony charge, or are currently incarcerated.
So, yes if he was convicted, provided it was a felony he would have absolutely been disqualified.
x
This is the classic modus operandi of Meyer.
He makes nonsensical self-contradictory arguments. Then when called out he resorts to personal insults and veers off into diatribes that are completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. The more you try to engage with his nonsensical and farcical arguments, the more he veers off topic until you end up arguing about something else entirely.
As you note it becomes a total waste of time trying to respond to his nonsensical BS. Inevitably, when you stop responding to his insanity, he says you have “run away”. As far as he is concerned one wins an argument by having the last word, even if the last word is insanely irrational. You will note that he will ALWAYS respond to your comments, because he is just trying to wear you down with his insanity to the point where you simply stop responding. As far as he is concerned that is victory.
He has absolutely no interest in engaging in a rational discussion.
“This is the classic modus operandi of Meyer.”
Or should we say this is the classic modus operandi of Sigmund the Fraud, who is the teammate of GSX in running backwards and is equally sick. Sigmund the Fraud comes in at the end of a discussion, in an attempt to resurrect the ideas of GSX, but, like him, knows nothing and is left with his ignorant off-point generalities that are meaningless.
Final Grade: Party Pooper, General of Off-Point generalities, and Invincibly Ignorant.
Don;t worry Meyer. The above Anonymous is just X logging on as anonymous. Easy to distinguish by his use of words, phrases, habitual throwbacks. He’s like the three year old who creates an imaginery supporter.
Agree to both you and Meyer. X and his multiple personalities did not even know what “modus operandi” meant until it was used in the comments section. No problem with being self-taught, but X pretends to be more.
“He has absolutely no interest in engaging in a rational discussion.”
True.
That creature is a sophist.
“I didn’t run away. I stopped answering your nonsensical BS.”
GSX, I’ll rephrase your comment: you didn’t run away; you lied, and when caught in a web of lies, you ran away. The truth outshines the lies. Even what you wrote above is a lie.
Listen to the two intelligent members of the blog above. I differ with Estovir. I don’t think you are paid, but if Estovir is correct, they are either putting you out to intentionally have you slaughtered, or they are wasting their money and could be as foolish as you. I think this blog is your life because you believe that if a smart person engages in a discussion with you, it raises your perceived intelligence among others, despite your ideas and intellect being decimated. Your belief is the opposite of the truth, but it sustains your activity. In either case, your actions on the blog show you as a very sick fellow
You lied in your response above, and I corrected your lie in my response. Instead of admitting that I was right and you were wrong, you pretended you were correct by later adding an “if.” Yet you are too stupid to recognize that, today, the public knows nothing that would disqualify the juror under that statute. However, to make things worse for you, you don’t even know for sure what was in his confidential document.
“. . . you believe that if a smart person engages in a discussion with you, it raises your perceived intelligence among others . . .”
SM: That is very, very perceptive.
Impressing others is its basic, pathological motivation. You can also see that in its chronic, unattributed use of AI and other sources.
Thanks, Sam.
X
See what I mean about Meyer.
He is as predictable as the sun rising in the east.
His latest comment is the typical personal insults, with insane, nonsensical BS.
He refuses to engage in any sort of rational, factual discussion. He simply engages in tortuous, irrelevant, picayune comments about how you say and phrase things, when the meaning is immediately apparent to any sane and rational reader. Instead of addressing the facts of your comments he veers off into weird analyses of form and style, and then criticizes those things as if they somehow relate to the actual facts of the discussion.
When he realizes that he is wrong, his only response is these petty insults.
This is X ^^^, everyone. Don’t be fooled.
Well, Sigmund the Fraud, it’s nice to see you stay this time. Generally your out before you start. And here we are again; you have yet to start in your last post or this one.. All you have is mush with your General Off-Point Generalities that amount to nothing more than insults.
Let us hear your defense of GSX’s words that I commented on. None, and that is after two of your inane posts. Today, it sounds like you are a couple with GSX on the bottom.
Final Grade: General of Off-Point Generalities, Invincibly Ignorant, and Infantile Dalliance
X
The first question here is what purpose is Reddington serving ?
There is a hung jury, there is a mistrial. Nothing Reddington can do will change that.
Successfully challenging the holdout juror after the verdict still has no legal remedy beyond a mistrial.
The only purpose Reddington can have here is to intimidate future jurors.
Personally I HIGHLY doubt therew will be a new trial. While the conduct of several fo those voting to acquit was far more egregious than anything claimed against the hold out – there are still atleast 4-5 jurors that voted to acquit without having otherwise disqualified themselves. It is likely in a new Trial the prosecution will do better than the first trial. But it is highly unlikely they can get a conviction.
Personally I think the circumstances in which a hung jury should allow a retrial are very rare. If a prosecution can not get a unanimous verdict in the first trial – they will ALWAYS be atleast one jury short of unanimity. 23 out of 24 is not different from 11 out of 12.
Regardless, the law allows retrials. But I highly doubt Clancy will be retried. The 11:1 vote for acquittal will likely result in an incredibly favorable plea deal for Clancy.
And that is likely close to appropriate. Clancy should not get the death penalty at one extreme and she should not just walk away from the murder of her children at the other. She should not do so even if her mental health claims are all 100% true. Justice is STILL served by imposing some consequences and by protecting the people from someone who murdered other in response to compelling voices in their head.
Disqualifying the hold out will NOT result in an aquital. It will just result in a slightly different form of mistrial.
Absolutely the defense is free to cull public records to establish whether a juror lied on a sworn jury questionnaire.
The proper opportunity for that is during voirdire, failure to do so then is an error on the part of the defense counsel.
The entire purpose of voirdire is to seat only a qualified jury.
There is an excellent argument with respect to jurors that hid significant factors that are NOT a matter of public record – such as the 4 jurors that admitted on TV they prejudged the case, something they were required to swear they had not done.
Regardless any juror that actually lied as part of the qualification process should be prosecuted.
Desronvil does not have a criminal record. Unless the jury questionaire asked about arrests, which it likely constitutionally can not, then he did not lie. Protection orders are civil not criminal, and again unless the jury questionaire specifically asked about that – which again it probably constitutionally can’t,. then Desronvil has done nothing wrong. And AGAIN everything claimed regarding Desronvil is a matter of public record – it was the Defense and prosecutions duty to determine if anything on the public record disqualified a juror.
Next, none of what is on the public record would have immediatgely disqualified Desronvil. There are very very few things that are ABSOLUTE disqualifications. While it is POSSIBLE that a judge can CHOOSE to dismiss a juror for cause at the request of the prosecution or defense because of something on the public record, again very few things are automatic disqualifications.
” Omitting those facts and the manner in which he conducted himself leads anyone to believe he is willing to lie. He already lied on his questionnaire and he brought a cell phone into the deliberations.”
All assumptions of facts not in evidence.
While we have Desronvil’s public records now – we do NOT have his jury questionaires.
YOU are assuming the questions and his answers – and likely incorrectly. Desronvil does NOT have a criminal record.
I have no idea if Desronvil brought a cell phone to court. In my state even the prosecutors and defense counsel may not bring a cell phone into the court house. But different places have different rules.
Regardless Desronvil still has his 4th and 5th amendment rights.
That means that to demand phone records Reddington must demonstrate probable cause that
A crime was committed and that Desronvil’s phone records will provide evidence of that crime.
Though again all of this is a tempest in a tea pot.
Clancy was NOT acqutted, impeaching Desronvil as a juror ex post facto will NOT change that.
There is no such thing as an 11-0 acquital.
Successfully impeaching Desronvil just secures a mistrial – which they already have.
Can the judge stop Reddington at this point?
John Say, Jurors are on record pointing out the holdout did indeed had a cell phone DURING deliberations. That alone allows for Reddington to ask for the records of those calls, texts, or content during the hours of deliberation from his phone. It may not matter if the trial is over, BUT it matters in the fact that there COULD be charges of Juror misconduct.
His 4th amendment rights are impeached by the fact he did have his phone out and was, as the other jurors noted, scrolling on his phone while ignoring the others DURING deliberations. That’s a major red flag.
I DO agree with you that a new trial will not likely be any easier for the prosecution. A lesser plea deal is likely.
Turley acknowledged the defense did a good job during trial and convinced 11 jurors not to convict. The holdout was not following the judge’s instructions and the fact that he indeed have his cell phone out while in deliberations posed a serious problem during the trial. Reddington did not want a mistrial. He wanted an acquittal and he almost got it. He came close. That lone juror was very likely engaging in deliberate misconduct.
John, what makes you say that it’s probably unconstitutional to ask jurors about arrests and protection orders? It’s not unconstitutional, and it’s standard to ask about any interaction with the law But the claim that he “must” have lied is pure speculation.
In most states the absolute disqualifiers are:
Being a relative of the victim, a witness, the prosecution or defense team or the court.
Physical or mental disability that precludes service.
Not being a US citizen.
Not speaking proficient english.
Additionally there are a few “excuses” – that allow someone to ask to be let off a jury such as military service, some occupations, and breast feeding mothers.
There are no other automatic disqualifiers.
Prior felony convictions will USUALLY get you removed from a jury for cause, but that is not automatic.
Prosecutors and defense attorney’s question jurors and are often granted removal for cause by the court for other things – but that is not required.
My wife is a criminal defense attorney. She has been called for jury duty many times.
Often the prosecutors get the judge to remove her for cause because she is a criminal defense attorney.
But not always – on more than one occasion Prosecutors have had to use a premptory challenge to remove her.
My POINT is that while there are some state to state variations – there are very few automatic disqualifications which you keep claiming.
Generally allowing an unqualified person onto the jury is considered to be an error by the defense or prosecuting attorney.
As YOU stated Desronvil’s hjas a few things on his public record. It was the duty of the prosecuting and defense attorney’s to seek Desronvil ‘s removal. They did not. Therefore he is qualified.
Yet more bloviating nonsense from the fool John Say.
A history of arrest and criminal charges without conviction does not disqualify an individual from jury duty in Massachusetts.
However potential jurors are required to disclose such information in the Confidential Jury Questionnaire.
https://www.mass.gov/doc/confidential-juror-questionnaire/download
Desronvil’s prior arrest and charges were for domestic violence in an attack on his wife. If Desronvil had disclosed his prior record, there is absolutely no doubt that the defense would have dismissed him.
Since he was not dismissed, the only reasonable conclusion is that Desronvil lied in his questionnaire, thus committing a crime.
You mind reading is duly noted.
Now, to *prove* your assertion: Produce Desronvil’s juror questionnaire.
Jurors, why should they, its Reddington’s job.