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.“
Desronvil is accused of getting hung up on the fact that the defendant committed a crime
I agree, I mean seriously, what does the defendant’s guilt have to do with a criminal trial in Massachusetts?
https://babylonbee.com/news/juror-accused-of-getting-hung-up-on-fact-that-defendant-committed-crime
Clancy would only be “guilty” if she was mentally competent when she killed her children. The State had the burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did it while in her right mind and in full control of her faculties. All of the jurors, including the holdout, agreed there was reasonable doubt that she was mentally competent.
No motivation for her to kill her children was ever given. By all accounts, including her former husband and mother in law, she was a warm and loving mother who took good care of her children until she snapped.
Under the law and the jury instructions, the jury was required to acquit if they had reasonable doubt, because the State had to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt—-which it failed to do. Nevertheless, the holdout not only refused to acquit, he refused to deliberate and was talking on the phone during deliberations.
Stop saying she was “guilty”—that is not true.
Gigi, didn’t you set yourself up as judge, jury, and executioner of the one juror before even waiting to hear his side of the story? You’re exactly what’s wrong with the world.
Stop saying she was “guilty”—that is not true.
I don’t take orders from you. She was guilty. The jurors who pretended otherwise went in with an insane agenda. They were not real jurors, just pretended to be. So GFY.
You and people like you who think a mother should be able to get away with violently killing her children are what’s wrong with the world.
ATS you are incorrect – not guilt by reason of mental defect is an affirmative defense – the defendant must prove that they were unable to resist a compelling mental health issue at the time of the act.
Why is the burden on the defense ? Because 99.99% of people even mentally unhealthy people are able to resist mental compulsions to commit crimes. Even among people with very severe mental health problems – including psychosis, the overwhelming majority are still in control of their own actions.
The vast majority of mass shooters as an example have very serious mental health problems.
But on the whole of people with the same mental health problems as mass shooters they are only twice as likely to commit crimes as ordinary people.
It is not the prosecutions responsibility to prove someone is mentally healthy. It is not even their responsibility to prove that someone with a mental health problem was still in control of their own actions. That burden is on the defense.
This is much like Self defense – another affirmative defense. The prosecution does not have to prove a use of force was NOT self defense,
the defense must prove it was if they claim self defense. The standard of proof may be lower but the burden is still on the defense.
John Say
Yet again you display your profound ignorance of the law.
In Massachusetts the burden of proof falls to the prosecution.
In Massachusetts state courts there is no plea of “not guilty by reason of insanity”. The plea is “not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.”
The defense simply has to provide evidence, usually from an expert psychiatrist, that there is reasonable doubt about the defendant’s sanity. The burden then shifts to the prosecution who must prove that the defendant is sane and criminally responsible beyond reasonable doubt.
In addition, there is no presumption of sanity in Massachusetts. In other states the judge may instruct the jury that there is a presumption of sanity, and that the defense must prove insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. That does not happen in Massachusetts. In Commonwealth v. Lawson (2016), the decision eliminated the presumption of sanity instruction to juries. The burden is on the prosecution to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must satisfy both parts of the McHoul test.
Firstly, they must prove that the defendant had the capacity to appreciate that her actions were wrong.
Secondly, they must prove that the defendant had the physical and mental capacity to control her actions in conformance with the law.
In other words the burden falls to the prosecution to prove that the defendant is sane beyond a reasonable doubt.
All the defense has to do is raise reasonable doubt about the sanity of the defendant.
The prosecution must satisfy both of these tests. If they can only prove one of the tests then the defendant MUST be found not guilty.
For example, if the defendant can be shown to know that murder is a crime, satisfying the first test, but that a delusional state of mind prevented her from controlling her actions, then the second test is not satisfied, and she MUST be found not guilty.
You are a pathetic know-nothing ignoramus who comes her spouting nonsensical legal theories that are completely divorced from reality.
You are an ignorant fool.
Back to this nonsense again.
No the burden of proving sanity does not fall on the prosecution.
That is obvious – the prosecution CAN NOT prove that a person is not hearing voices and that they are not able to resist them.
Placing the burden on the prosecution would mean every single murderer ever could claim that that they were responding to voices in their head that they could not resist and they could not be convicted.
With respect to semantic quirks specific to Massachusetts – that is all they are is semantics.
“The defense simply has to provide evidence”
Correct – and you just ceded the argument.
The DEFENSE must provide evidence.
End of argument, the burden of proof – like in a self defense case is on the DEFENSE.
Beyond that you are arguing what the standard of proof is for the defense.
I do not specifically know what the standard of proof is in MA for a mental defect defense.
That is an independent issue and it is FOR THE JURY to decide whether that standard was met.
Regardless, like Self Defense the standard of proof FOR THE DEFENSE in an affirmative defense is NOT beyond a reasonable doubt.
I am using Self Defense as a comparable example because most people understand it better. In a self defense case THE DEFENSE must typically prove that there was a serious threat to life or of grevious bodily injury to themselves or others. Again the standard for that proof is NOT “beyond a reasonable doubt” – but it is still THE DEFENSE that must prove self defense.
“In addition, there is no presumption of sanity in Massachusetts.”
Not relevant. There is an automati presumption of sanity in the real world – or people would be listening to voices and murdering their neighbors all over the place.
I know this is hard for you left wing nuts – but not just our legal system – but ALL our institutions and norms are based on REALITY.
” In other states the judge may instruct the jury that there is a presumption of sanity, and that the defense must prove insanity beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Again like a typical left wing nut – you lack reading comprehension.
WHERE have I said that the Defense must ever prove anything BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
The standard of proof for the defense in affirmative defenses is not beyond a reasonable doubt.
As to the case you cite – it is not even necescary to examine it.
Fundimentally standard of proof is a JURY MATTER. Judges explain what the law requires to the jury. But Jury’s may or may not follow that and there is almost never anything the courts prosecutors or defense can do about that.
Courts almost NEVER intrude into jury deliberations.
That is a major part of the FARCE that is going on here.
While I have issues with Reddington’s post trial conduct – as does Turley – he is STILL Mostly legitimately focused on pre-deliberations factors – such as “if I had known X, I would have rejected this juror”. That is generally a legitimate approach. But it is also nearly always a loser. It takes incredibly egregious issues to get a court to re-examine jury selection after deliberations have started.
The other area he is focusing on is outside influences – even that is an uphill battle. Usually once deliberations start removing a juror for outside contact is difficult to do because it FORCES a retrial – there are no alternate jurors at this point. But if that outside influence was criminal – such as bribery or it directly involved the prosecution or defense then the juror can be disqualified.
Reddington is also now trying to argue that Clancy can not be retried because Jeophardy attached and because Judge Sulivan ended deliberations too early. Exposing the Juror publicly and attacking him is a huge mistake for that approach. The hold out has now publicly said over and over that he was absolutely certain – had no doubts at all, and to argue that Sullivan should have forced the jury to deliberate further is going to require an appeals court to disbeleive not only the public statements of the juror – but actually those of other jurors who keep publicly maligning him as unreasonable.
“The burden is on the prosecution to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Nope.
“In other words the burden falls to the prosecution”
So now you are contradicting yourself.
“You are a pathetic know-nothing ignoramus who comes her spouting nonsensical legal theories that are completely divorced from reality.”
Ad Hominem is just one of the very best arguments you could make.
Please heap it on.
All it does is expose the weakness of the rest of your claims.
Lets address reality.
First in the vast majority of cases standards of proof and fine points of the law are irrelevant.
In most cases who did what when where and why is very clear – that does not preclude an enormous number of criminal defendants from constructing bizzare theories of why they are innocent.
Contra your claim I have a great deal of experience in that. As I have said before, my wife is the head of appeals for my counties public defenders office. I get to hear about her cases all the time. Criminal defendants write long letters explaining exactly why they are not guilty and how their cases should be appealed and in 20+ years only ONCE has a defendant offered anything useful.
If a jury convicts you – your stand a snowballs chance in h311 of convincing an appeals court that they did not apply the correct standard of proof – even if it is pretty obvious that there was reasonable doubt.
The courts do NOT second guess jurors. That means you can rant and rave about standards of proof all you want. The courts can instruct jurors until the cows come home – once the jury enters deliberations any influence of the courts is limited to the jury deciding to actually listen to the judge.
The actual standard of proof and the actual burden of proof is whatever the 12 people on the jury decide it is on any given case.
In the real world most of the time it does not matter – because in the real world most of the time again the what when where how and why are no secret.
But in those few cases where that clarity does not exist – juries mostly do as they please and there is absolutely nothing the courts do about it.
You do not get anywhere on appeal attacking the jury – no matter how egregious their decisions are.
In this particularly case – all the left wing nuts in the world think that 11 MA jurors were right and the one holdout was wrong.
But nationwide it is nearly 50:30 the other way last time I checked the polls.
Even on this jury – it appears that 4-5 members where prepared to convict at the start of deliberations.
Some of those are saying they were persuaded others say they were bullied. Regardless all but this holdout changed.
This nonsensical diatribe by John Say is the classic Gish Gallop that he employs when he knows he is wrong. He simply rambles incoherently about completely irrelevant matters that bear no relation to this case whatsoever.
The following is a summary of facts regarding a plea of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility in Massachusetts.
There is NO affirmative defense required of the defense. NONE.
The defense does NOT have an evidentiary burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is insane. All the defense has to do is “properly raise” the possibility of insanity. The defense called only one psychiatrist who had personally examined and evaluated Clancy. He testified that in his opinion she was psychotic and hallucinatory. That is enough to “properly raise” the defense. The defense had no further burden of proof beyond that.
Once the defense of insanity was “properly raised”, the burden shifts entirely to the prosecution to prove that the defendant is sane, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
That burden is very high standard to meet. That is why the prosecution called 3 psychiatrists who had personally examined and evaluated Clancy. They needed to prove that she was sane beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defense had a burden of simply “properly raising” the defense without the evidentiary burden of a preponderance of the evidence. That is why they only called one psychiatrist. All they needed was one expert witness with the proper credentials to testify that in his opinion, Clancy is insane. That’s it. That’s all they needed. They didn’t have to prove anything to the jury, beyond having an expert simply raise the possibility of insanity. All they are required to do is raise the possibility of insanity as an issue where there is reasonable doubt. This was established in Commonwealth v. Mills.
The moment that a defense of insanity is “properly raised” the defense has no further burden of proof. The burden shifts entirely and exclusively to the prosecution to prove that the defendant is sane beyond reasonable doubt.
This is where you missed the boat:
“Yes, an appellate court can review whether a defendant’s affirmative defense produced enough evidence to create a reasonable doubt.”
Is that better? hope this helps
powertriallawy
You do not seem to be able to get pretty much any of the facts correct.
Mental competence is NOT the standard. The standard is unable to control her own actions.
The vast majority of people who are not mentally competent do not murder people.
Even people who hear voices telling them to do evil things – overwhelmingly are able to resist those voices.
Very few people think Clancy was “mentally competent”.
This is also why the prosecution made an issue of premeditation – that she arranged to have her husband out of the house to have time to commit the murders. Planning is generally a sign of the ability to control your own actions.
Motive is not a required element for any crime.
Juries like to have a motive demonstrated – but it is not a requirement.
John Say, you accuse others of “being unable to get pretty much any of the facts correct”, but you NEVER get ANY facts correct.
You have been consistently wrong with all your comments here about the Clancy case. You are wrong about how Desronvil was required to complete a CJQ.
You have absolutely no understanding of Massachusetts law with regard to the burden of proof in trials where there is a plea of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.
Your opinions are completely untethered from reality.
You know less than nothing about the law.
You are an ignorant fool who constantly employs the Gish Gallop of nonsensical gibberish in an absurd attempt to overwhelm any attempt to correct your ridiculous comments.
ATS – you can say whatever you want – but insults are not arguments.
And as is typical – your reading comprehension SUCKS.
” You are wrong about how Desronvil was required to complete a CJQ.”
What does this even mean ?
We have had lots of people make claims here WITHOUT ANY REAL EVIDENCE.
We do not have the Jury Questionaire – that means everything being said about it is SPECULATION.
While I have done SOME speculating – I am OPEN about it. I am NOT claiming that what I think it LIKELY to be true is a FACT.
It is not an established FACT until we see the actual questionaire with the actual answers.
Even Reddington is NOT making the same stupid speculative claims of posters here.
He is NOT saying that the holdout lied. He is saying that he wants to see the questionaire AGAIN so that he can inquire as to whether he lied.
Others here who claim to know more about MA procedure have explained that procedure – I am not challenging that but at the same time, most of these posters do NOT have a very good track record for accurracy. Regardless what is being reported seems to confirm that the PROCESS works as they described. Others hae provided a blank Questionaire from a mass.gov web site. Alleging that MUST be the questionaire that was used in this case. Again I DO NOT KNOW how that works in MA – and I doubt they do either.
I am suprised by that questionaire – because it is obviously unconstitutional, badly written, and insufficient to make a perjury claim.
There have been significant discussions – on this blog about the requirements for committing perjury in filling out a form prior to this case. because of DOJ investigations against several top democrats who obviously lied on forms. Without rehashing those – there are specific requirements for charging perjury for lying on a form and this form does not come close to meeting those.
That of course presumes the form offered is the one used.
Again much of this varies from state to state and locality to locality and I do not know the rules in Massachusetts.
But in MY state you can easily find an assortment of forms offered by the state courts administration – that means NOTHING with respect to what a specific local court actually uses.
Once again – lots of people here SPECULATE but they do not know.
We will only KNOW if the holdouts form is made public – and that is NOT LIKELY TO HAPPEN.
I would give less than 50:50 odds that the court allows Reddington to review it a 2nd time.
Again that is my GUESS, and I could be wrong – but I am not trying to make absolute claims like the rest of you left wing nut idiots,
where the required evidence is NOT available to the public, and not likely to ever be.
“You have absolutely no understanding of Massachusetts law with regard to the burden of proof in trials where there is a plea of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.”
Because you say so ? And because others posting here are so much better qualified ?
Cut the CRAP. Absolutely I do not know all the nuances of MA law – and there is not a single poster here that is in any consequential way more knowledgeable.
But I do understand the process in my state and locality, and I understand what can and often does vary and what cant and almost never varies. We have ONE constitution in this country – and it applies to all 50 states.
Separately as TURLEY has pointed out – which is universal accross the US – and in fact the entire western legal tradition.
Courts almost NEVER delve into jury deliberations. Courts almost NEVER disqualify jurors after deliberations have started
Short of attempted bribery. Courts almost never 2nd guess juries.
This is massachusetts and left wing nuts are involved – and pretty much every radical deviation from the norms of law and the rule of law and institutional standards comes from left wing nuts, and we have had far far far more of that int he past decade as left wing nuts have polluted the law and the courts undermining the stability of critical institutions.
So absolutely it is possible that lightning will strike here.
But I would not bet money on it.
The most likely outcome of all this is a negotiated settlement – a plea deal of some kind,
and there is lots of evidence that something along those lines is in the works right now.
BTW Reddington has already taken some of his arguments to the MA supreme court and been rebuffed.
Mostly because he is way premature. But atleast partly because courts do not second guess jury deliberations, they do not even allow inquiry into them.
X/George/GSX/GiGi/Anonymous @1:12 and 1:33
I am familiar with Mass. law. You are familiar with the Internet and AI.
It is very clear that your attempt to explain the law lacks the depth and COMPREHENSION to do so. You also limited your understanding by citing only the cases you found on AI and the Internet. Very common with you.
FIRST, there is no distinction between a plea of “not guilty by reason of insanity” and a plea of “not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.” The burden is the same.
SECOND, you say, “The defense simply has to provide evidence, usually from an expert psychiatrist, that there is reasonable doubt about the defendant’s sanity.”
NO. The defense has to do more than just provide evidence. (That’s what tells me that you copied this without understanding it.) Although many states declare that an affirmative defense (John Say is right about that.) carries a defense burden of beyond a reasonable doubt, Massachusetts does not. Nonetheless, defense carries the evidentiary burden of preponderance of evidence to raise reasonable doubt. If defense meets that burden, prosecution must overcome it, beyond a reasonable doubt.
You tell John Say, “You have absolutely no understanding of Massachusetts law with regard to the burden of proof in trials where there is a plea of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.”
Neither, apparently, do you.
First of all, at least you confirm that John Say is wrong in his assertions about the burden of proof in Massachusetts.
However, it is quite clear that you are NOT familiar with Massachusetts law, and also that you completely misunderstand what I said.
I did not say that there is a distinction between a plea of “not guilty by reason of insanity” and a plea of “not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility”. I simply, and correctly, stated that the terminology used in Massachusetts is “not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility”.
You are completely wrong about the burden of the defense in these cases. The defense does NOT have an evidentiary burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is insane. All the defense has to do is “properly raise” the possibility of insanity. The defense called only one psychiatrist who had personally examined and evaluated Clancy. He testified that in his opinion she was psychotic and hallucinatory. That is enough to “properly raise” the defense. The defense had no further burden of proof beyond that.
Once the defense of insanity was “properly raised”, the burden shifts entirely to the prosecution to prove that the defendant is sane, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
That burden is very high standard to meet. That is why the prosecution called 3 psychiatrists who had personally examined and evaluated Clancy. They needed to prove that she was sane beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defense had a burden of simply “properly raising” the defense without the evidentiary burden of a preponderance of the evidence. That is why they only called one psychiatrist. All they needed was one expert witness with the proper credentials to testify that in his opinion, Clancy is insane. That’s it. That’s all they needed. They didn’t have to prove anything to the jury, beyond having an expert simply raise the probability of insanity. All they are required to do is raise the probability of insanity as an issue where there is reasonable doubt. This was established in Commonwealth v. Mills.
The moment that a defense of insanity is “properly raised” the defense has no further burden of proof. The burden shifts entirely and exclusively to the prosecution to prove that the defendant is sane beyond reasonable doubt.
You clearly do not understand Massachusetts law.
I do.
I can tell that you are relying on info from Internet searches to try to explain what you do, and frankly, it’s laughable.
While it is true that the burden remains with the Commonwealth under Mass. law, your COMPREHENSION of what is meant by your lifted language of “defense had a burden of simply ‘properly raising’” shows your complete lack of comprehension.
For example, to help educate you, here is language from the Mills case, (quoting from Laliberty)
“A defense of lack of criminal responsibility may be raised by ‘any evidence which, if
believed, might create a reasonable doubt concerning the defendant’s criminal
responsibility at the time of the [crime].’”
I can also quote from the Lawson and Berry cases to show that YOU have no idea or understanding of what you are talking about. e,g., “[T]he Commonwealth need prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt only after there is evidence presented of lack of criminal responsibility that is sufficient to warrant a reasonable doubt.”
Get it?
Try to take the time to think that through.
This burden was likely met in the Clancy case, and the burden remained with the Commonwealth to defeat it. But that is not the issue here, and your waxing prolix against John Say is truly laughable.
You, not me, apparently do NOT understand the significance of that.
(If you are not X/Geo, then you at least parallel him/her in your flawed (and unoriginal) thinking. Because of the emotional insults you threw out at John, I think you ARE.)
(It’s likely X/George.)
We appear to have entered the Twilight Zone with this little discussion.
In your original comment you clearly stated, “the defense carries the evidentiary burden of preponderance of evidence to raise reasonable doubt”.
That is absolutely false. The defense does not have to prove ANYTHING by a preponderance of evidence. They have no burden of proof whatsoever. They just have to raise reasonable doubt that the defendant is sane. All they have to do is provide some minimal amount of evidence that could reasonably be construed by a jury as reasonable doubt. In this case Reddington called just a single expert psychiatrist who testified for less than 2 hours, almost all of which was direct. The prosecution questioned him for less than 30 minutes. The prosecution knew that it was completely pointless to attack the defense expert, because the mere introduction of some minimal evidence that Clancy is insane is sufficient to shift the burden entirely to the prosecution. If Reddington had ANY burden of proof whatsoever, he would have marshaled a veritable army of experts to overcome that burden. But he didn’t need to do that.
Having dealt with the falsity of your original comment, let’s move on to the current comment, where you have changed your tune, and actually confirm my comments without even realizing it.
You cite the language in Mills, thusly, “A defense of lack of criminal responsibility may be raised by ‘any evidence which, if believed, might create a reasonable doubt concerning the defendant’s criminal responsibility at the time of the [crime].”
You then cite the Lawson case, “[T]he Commonwealth need prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt only after there is evidence presented of lack of criminal responsibility that is sufficient to warrant a reasonable doubt.”
Do you understand your own citations?
Mills says that the defense may be raised by ANY evidence that may create reasonable doubt. It does NOT say the evidentiary burden is the preponderance of evidence as you originally claimed.
Likewise for Lawson, which states that the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt moves to the prosecution upon defense evidence sufficient for reasonable doubt, NOT a preponderance of the evidence.
Both your citations are completely consistent with my comments. I just used different words and phraseology that mean the same thing as your citations.
You are completely lost in failing to understand the meaning of your own words
You know nothing.
And if you are defending the lunatic John Say, then you are just as crazy as he is.
do you even understand what you are saying?
>>>”only after there is evidence presented of that is sufficient to warrant a reasonable doubt.”
QUOTE: “that is sufficient to warrant a reasonable doubt.”
Lawson,
“At trial, the question goes to the jury if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, would permit a reasonable doubt about criminal responsibility.”
QUOTE: “viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant.”
In other words, know-it-all, this hints at more than a scintilla of evidence if, in fact, it must “warrant a reasonable doubt, and is to be viewed in a light most favorable to it.
The very LOWEST of a standard of evidence is a preponderance, which of course means, more likely than not.
Of course, defendant need not produce ANY evidence and simply argue that prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt,—- but if she does, it must meet the level above.
Do you get it now?
YOU, not me, were the smart aleck who said, “ANY evidence,” and then proceeded to fling insults at John.
I and my legal colleagues find you humorous.
good night.
yup,
““Yes, an appellate court can review whether a defendant’s affirmative defense produced enough evidence to create a reasonable doubt.”
from AI
powertriallawy
Now I know with certainty that you are not an attorney, at least not an attorney with any familiarity with criminal law in Massachusetts. If you are an attorney at all, which I doubt, you are most likely an ambulance chaser.
You continue to fail to understand the meaning of your own words.
Both your citations are completely consistent with my comments. The defense simply has to introduce ANY evidence that may reasonably be construed as reasonable doubt. And yet you persist in saying that the evidence so introduced must meet a standard of preponderance of evidence, and that preponderance of the evidence is the lowest evidentiary standard.
That is false.
In Massachusetts, in insanity cases, the defense carries NO BURDEN OF PROOF.
And in these cases preponderance of the evidence is most definitely not the “The very LOWEST of a standard of evidence” as you falsely proclaim.
I really hate to do this, but I suggest you ask Google the following question.
This is so fundamentally basic that even Google gets it right.
The question is the following:
In Massachusetts does the defense need to prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence in order to move the burden to the prosecution
anonny at 11:47
WOW, You just tried to argue, “The defense does NOT have an evidentiary burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is insane.”
One problem, clown. NO ONE SAID THAT.
Here, let me help you by using AI’s words =which you apparently are more familiar with.
“Yes, an appellate court can review whether a defendant’s affirmative defense produced enough evidence to create a reasonable doubt.”
Is that better? hope this helps
powertriallawy
GUILTY, GUIILTY GUILTY AND MORE GUILTY. Stop blaming everybody else.
“All of the jurors, including the holdout, agreed there was reasonable doubt . . .”
That’s false.
Desronvil said publicly that he had *no* doubt. You are free to disagree with him. You are not free to lie about his judgment.
By that reasoning is a highly intoxicated person that kills a family in a head on innocent due to their lack of mental capacity?
Of course anyone that commits a murder or murders in this case such as this is out of their minds. That’s not an excuse for murder, give her the gas.
Wait a minute. Was he using phone in chambers or not? Was he lying on forms or not? There is nothing in between. If he did so, then tar and feather him.
On other counts pointed by Turley, Reddington should be disbarred himself.
Reddington should not be disbarred. He should be put behind bars.
AS left wing nuts here constantly point out MA is different.
Cellphones must be silenced in court, or turned off – but they are allowed in MA.
And so far no one has provided evidence of a rule barring cellphones in jury rooms.
And aparently all or most of the jurors had cell phones.
Regardless, it is not the presence of a cell that is relevant – it is whether a juror communicated with anyone regarding the case.
This was not a sequestered jury. The jurors went home at night – where they had access to TV, computers, cell phones, etc.
The issue is influence – not tools.
Standard jury instructions, given after the venire is finalized, include the admonition not to look at newspaper accounts, the internet, television or radio accounts of the trial, and NOT to discuss the case with anyone. This instruction is given every time the jury breaks–for any reason, including restroom breaks, lunch breaks and at the end of each day. They are ordered that if anyone tries to speak with them about the case, to report that to the judge immediately. The jury kept telling the judge that they were deadlocked, and he ORDERED them to continue deliberating. The holdout refused to discuss the evidence, kept saying that he was never going to acquit, and was talking on the phone—that violated the court’s order.
The only appropriate action to take against Kevin Reddington is to pick him up, take him to an abandoned warehouse, and then hold a vigilante star chamber trial to determine his fate. I’ve taken polls of the vigilante team who will be ruling on his case, and initial indicators are that Reddington should be beaten senselessly.
I have to agree that beating Reddington senseless appears to be a sound, fair, balanced, and well conceived punishment for Reddington’s scumbagish conduct.
“[Reddington’s] demand is highly unusual.” — Jonathan Turley
No, this “demand” isn’t “unusual;” it is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS!!!
Reddington is trying to stir a mob up to relentlessly hound the holdout juror into submission, and perhaps even to encourage one or more self-appointed “vigilantes” (and here I use the term very loosely, for want of a better word) to attempt to kill the holdout juror, and maybe even his family.
The judge had better put a stop to this immediately, and Reddington should be brought up on some sort of legal charges leading to his disbarment.
For my part, I think that I will never, ever serve as a juror again, citing Reddington’s lunatic conduct as the danger adherent to EVER serving on a jury.
I feel the same. Do NOT contact me. I will refuse to serve as a juror because of what this idiot did.
“Reddington is trying to . . .”
And, if there is a new trial, he’s trying to intimidate future jurors — as in: “You sure you want to vote guilty? Look at what I did to the last one who voted that way.”
He’s a mob lawyer using mob tactics.
If I tried what Reddington is doing I would expect trouble with the judge, trouble with the bar, and trouble with the juror’s attorney.
It is corrosive, despicable, and worthy of severe penalties.
And I wonder what juries will think if this person is counsel on future trials? “Will I be savaged in the media and harassed out of my home if I vote what I believe is true?”
This lawyer must be brought up on ethics charges by someone
You can’t bring ethics charges against Kevin Reddington. Reddington has no ethics and doesn’t believe in them.
Young, we don’t have the facts, but based on what we know, could the common civil claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress be a possibility? I hear that charge floated quite often
I suspect that what you are “hearing” is the voices in your head.
Apparently you are willing to entertain the possibility of a civil action, even though, as you say, “we don’t have the facts”.
What a stupid comment, just read what I said and try not to act like an imbecile. Did you go back to the bottle?
I did read what you said. You said that “we don’t have the facts”, and that you have heard that a civil action may be in order.
The most likely source of what you are hearing is therefore the voices in your head.
Your response isn’t even acceptable for a fourth-grader. When I said, “Could the common civil claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress be a possibility?”, didn’t you notice the word could and the question mark? No, how could you. Your brain was addled and you didn’t wait for it to clear, so you commented, and again made a fool out of yourself.
OK. Let me put it in a way that even someone as dimwitted as you can understand.
You said you have HEARD the possibility of suing for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
You also said, and I quote, “we don’t have the facts”.
Imagine the following scenario, where you go to consult an attorney.
You: I want to sue someone for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Attorney: Great. I’m your man. I can handle that. Give me the facts.
You: I don’t have any facts.
How do you think the attorney would respond?
You are a remarkably low functioning idiot.
The only place you have HEARD about suing for intentional infliction of emotional distress is from the voices in your head.
Anon @ 11:26
It is completely pointless to try to engage with Meyer in a rational discussion.
I have previously pointed out that whenever he realizes he is wrong, which is most of the time, he resorts to personal insults and tries to change the discussion to some completely irrelevant point that bears no relationship to the facts of the discussion.
Here we see that he realizes he has made an absurdly ridiculous comment, and he now tries to switch the argument to punctuation as if that somehow proves his original comment is not as stupid as it obviously is.
He is trying to get you to argue about punctuation rather than the absurdity of the content of his comment.
Anon @ 11:26
It is completely pointless to try to engage with Meyer in any kind of rational discussion.
I have previously pointed out that whenever he realizes he is wrong, which is most of the time, he resorts to personal insults and tries to change the discussion to some completely irrelevant point that bears no relationship to the facts of the discussion.
Here we see that he realizes he has made an absurdly ridiculous comment, and he now tries to switch the argument to punctuation as if that somehow proves his original comment is not as stupid as it obviously is.
He is trying to get you to argue about punctuation rather than the absurdity of the content of his comment
Sigmund the Fraud, I see you posted the same rubbish two times. You don’t think he is smart either living in the dregs, so you are making him read your words twice. But you said nothing. You may win the prize for the most words with nothing to say.
Final Grade: Invincibly Ignorant, Infantile Dalliance, and Dregs Dweller
The more you speak, the dumber you get. I already showed you what the word “could” and the question mark meant. Indeed, all the facts aren’t in, but in the meantime, “could” such a suit be a “possibility”? Take note of the question mark.
Maybe you can win the prize for the dumbest on the blog. Don’t be too hopeful; GSX and Sigmund the Fraud, below, are running for the same position.
Apparently you are going to persist with this insanity of trying to change the topic of discussion to punctuation and grammar, rather than your absurdly ignorant original comment.
I have no interest in discussing punctuation and grammar with a moron like you who clearly struggles with the English language, but instead let me answer the question that you originally proposed to Young, which is the REAL basis of this discussion.
The answer is unequivocal.
No, in the absence of facts, the civil claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is definitely, and unequivocally and undeniably and beyond any shadow of doubt, NOT a possibility.
There, you have the answer to your original question that you heard from the voices in your head.
Perhaps you should discuss this further with the voices in your head, and explain to them why they are wrong.
Let me know what they say
I would be interested in their response.
very childish on your part, X/georgie.
AND you say to S. Meyer, “I have previously pointed out that whenever he realizes he is wrong, which is most of the time, he resorts to personal insults and tries to change the discussion to some completely irrelevant point that bears no relationship to the facts of the discussion.”
NO, X/georgie, that is the precise language of comments lobbied against YOU. My my my, You need to get a job as a COPY editor, ha ha.
Sigmund the Fraud, you remained here. What a surprise; I can see your front instead of your back as you run away.
Like a typical liar and miscreant, you try to change what other people say to create a fight and disrupt the blog. And you do it under the cover of anonymity, something cowards do on this blog all too frequently. Hit-and-run, along with lying, is your only game. You intentionally obfuscate the truth.
All your BS stems from my question to another: “Could the common civil claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress be a possibility?” Now that the question is raised to your face, tell everyone what is wrong with it.
Final Grade: Pigeon Poop, Duplicitous Dolt, and Lying Lowlife
“punctuation and grammar????????????????????”
maybe, loosely, semantics or lexicology, but not punctuation and grammar.
What thesaurus did you pick up “moron” from, X?
I already told what is wrong with that sentence.
In the absence of facts, NO, the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is MOST DEFINITELY NOT A POSSIBILITY.
You, yourself, stated in the sentence preceding this one that “we don’t have the facts”. In the absence of facts NO civil claim of any description can be brought in any court, let alone “intentional infliction of emotional distress”.
The absence of facts means you have no case to argue.
What don’t you understand about that simple conclusion?
I suggest you consult the voices in your head. They may be able to explain it to you, but somehow I doubt it. This latest comment is most likely something else that you have heard from the voices.
“I already told what is wrong with that sentence.”
Sigmund the Fraud is at a loss for words. He uses a circuitous logic that lands everywhere except the target. Despite all that bluster, he failed to tell us what is wrong with the sentence, “Could the common civil claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress be a possibility?”
Now it is time for the coward to turn his back and run away.
Final Grade: Pigeon Poop, Duplicitous Dolt, and Lying Lowlife
S. Meyer,
Without actually researching the issue I am not sure what cause of action I might choose. But thinking of some of Reddington’s statements my initial thought was defamation. There may wells be others; or so I suspect.
I have wondered about misconduct by some of the other jurors. Their public statements suggest that they were set on jury nullification in order to make some feminist statement.
They sound like lunatics. I wonder how many of them are in ‘therapy’ and on psychiatric drugs? Maybe that’s a question for future jurors.
“They sound like lunatics. I wonder how many of them are in ‘therapy’ and on psychiatric drugs?”
True. Their staunch disagreement with Desronvil might stem from outrage as they try to excuse themselves from their own craziness.
Why are you people rushing to defend this worthless scumbag who lied his way on to the jury?
He was arrested for a vicious assault on his wife, who he tried to choke.
He was charged with domestic violence, but not convicted because his wife was too afraid to testify against him.
He savagely beat his nephew, who has a court ordered restraining order against him.
His family is so afraid of him that they refused to testify against him and moved away.
His own mother called him evil.
He was required to disclose all this in the Confidential Jury Questionnaire that all jurors must complete under penalty of perjury.
If this history was known there is no way that he would been seated on the jury. The defense would have dismissed him immediately, and probably the prosecution would have dismissed him.
The fact that he made it on to the jury makes it clear that he made a false declaration in his CJQ, and thus committed a crime.
The fact you post anonymously is a clear indication you have no credibility!
Now Now Annoying us, after a libelous comment as yours, in efforts to keep everything together in the name of all things equal. Let’s all take a moment of silence to remember Saint George Floyd …and the railroad show trial to sacrifice a few police officer’s.
FREE CHAUVIN NOW!
Go drink another box of wine, moron
BAN FOR LIFE!
So you support women killing their children?
No I don’t.
That is an absurd implication, typical of someone of very low intelligence.
Whether or not Clancy is insane is not for me to decide, or for you to decide.
However I most definitely object to misogynistic wife beaters standing in judgement of a woman.
If you thinks that means that I support women killing their children, then YOU are definitely insane.
Two Questions
Did you write this article; and did you tell the truth when you wrote the article?
“He was charged with domestic violence, but not convicted because his wife was too afraid to testify against him”
Sounds like “Maryland Man” Abrego-Garcia. Who the Left treats as a secular saint.
Mr. Dix
Domestic Violence in a black family LOL!
Have you ever watched any YouTube videos of ratchet black women going off? He’s probably lucky to escape with his life.
Why are idiot women willing to throw the jury system down the toilet for a woman who brutally murdered her 3 children while they watched her.
#. Reddington is advocating fir dismissal. Retry he’ll get either an acquittal, dismissal or manslaughter deal. He snagged heart hands women’s issue. No one tried to stop him so judge is on board.
I am disgusted by Reddington’s attack on this juror or any juror. It is wrong. This is utterly unprofessional and it has a horrible effect on future potential jurors
The juror CAN SHOULD & probably WILL file an ethics complaint on this scoundrel under RPC 8.4, the catch-all.
The thing about lawyers, when they get in their 60s, they may let it all hang out, because they don’t care if they lose their license at that point. Don’t hire a PI lawyer in the 60s decade, you may not see what you actually collect. Shoot for one in his 40-50s.
Sal Sar
Make Accordions Great Again!
BAN FOR LIFE!
What do you call it when you arrange the circumstances to facilitate and then kill three vulnerable, unsuspecting, and innocent children?
Kinda crazy, huh?
_____________________
2026 The General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Section 1: Murder defined
Section 1. Murder committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, or with extreme atrocity or cruelty, or in the commission or attempted commission of a crime punishable with death or imprisonment for life, is murder in the first degree. Murder which does not appear to be in the first degree is murder in the second degree. Petit treason shall be prosecuted and punished as murder. The degree of murder shall be found by the jury.
I have to agree. The “opportunity” presented itself after planning so it must be ok. It’s OT.
Article is about Reddington and preventing unbiased future jury. 😏
Adieu
Profound! Thank you for your contribution, Einstein!
Incidentally, everyone knows this woman will never be convicted of anything.
92% of the jury paid no attention to facts and voted for irrational sympathy.
You want bias or a dearth thereof?
This case is liberal history.
Sorry, but this just f***ed up no matter how one slices it. The modern left are a mentally ill disease. All of them. It is madness.
Murder nullification alla do an alternate trial oj. What is the definition of legal sanity? 7 week crash course in psychiatry and BINGO! Had a jury.
Kevin Reddington’s request is within the bounds of zealous advocacy for his client. Numerous other jurors said that the holdout was not only talking on his phone, but that he refused to participate in deliberations, and that was a violation of the judge’s charge to the jury. In fact, it’s not clear how or why he even had a phone with him–they are verboten for good reasons, just like the rule about not discussing the case outside of the jury room with others or reporting someone who is trying to discuss the case with a juror before they arrive at a verdict. If he did violate the judge’s charge to the jury, then it will be up to the judge how to handle such blatant misconduct and contempt of his order. The holdout might be looking at some personal liability, which would be a good thing–a signal to anyone else summoned to serve that jury service is serious business and that when a judge orders you to do or not do something, failure to comply has consequences.
Turley’s criticism of Reddington is misplaced, but that is the MAGA position. After admitting that he had reasonable doubt that Clancy was in control of her faculties at the time of the acts, the jury instruction was that they should acquit because the State failed to meet its burden of proof. The holdout decided that he just wasn’t going to acquit her or even discuss the reasons why. Reddington’s criticism of this aberrant behavior was appropriate. The State did fail to meet its burden and Clancy should have been acquitted.
The result wouldn’t change even if all such allegations were true. No judge could enter a verdict for the defense anyway.
A judge could issue a “directed verdict” if the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof.
It does seem the Judges jury instructions and this juror’s understanding of ‘guilt and insanity’, under ‘the law’, are two different things?
No it’s not, you won’t even find that word zealous in a lot of canons anymore. IT’s bullying the juror. RPC 8.4 will ding him. This has little to do with “left v right” at all.
The lady is an insane murderess, or perhaps not insane, but just a murderess, so just make sure she gets locked up the next 3 decades, for the safety of the public, however it gets done
I just love the way you and X come here every day to put down Jonathan Turley, when you are not professors of law, legal scholars, or even lawyers, have not authored legal papers or books, and have no known affiliation with legal interest entities.
“Refused to deliberate”
Ever been on a jury?
Some jurors make their minds up early, and aren’t going to budge.
They aren’t obligated to persuade the rest, or even provide a rationale for their vote.
And what was he allegedly doing on his phone? Wordle? Candy Crush?
“After admitting that he had reasonable doubt that Clancy was in control of her faculties at the time of the acts . . .”
More Leftist lies.
He admitted no such thing. In fact, Desronvil stated publicly that he had *no* doubt about Clancy’s sanity.
Juries are curious creatures. Supposed “trial by disinterested peers” is many times “trial by those who cannot escape jury duty”, or worse, “trial by those who are bringing an agenda into the jury box”. This is the case occasionally in civil courts, and is becoming more often the case in criminal courts in our hyperpolarized society. I can offer the above observation as a criticism, but I concede that I have no solution to the situation that I criticize.
Flirting around the edge of the Clancy case is a question (suspicion?) that at least some of the jurors voting not guilty were practicing a form of jury nullification – a legal sin that all lawyers publicly abhor and condemn, but that I suspect some unknown number hope occurs in some trials in which they participate. Jury nullification is like Strong Medicine – a little can sometimes set things aright, but too much, dosed too frequently can also kill the patient. In addition a lawyer friend of mine of many years practice acknowledges that witnesses lie frequently and without fear of perjury charges – and there is nothing that he can usually do about it when a witness is lying to his face and to the jury.
A last thought, relating somewhat to the subject above: “What Is The Function of the Jury?” Supposedly it is to determine “the truth”, but this is somewhat hard to believe when the rules of law or the court deny jurors certain facts because of various reasons. Can any “trier of fact” make a rational decision about what the truth is when some unknown percentage of the facts surrounding the case have been withheld from them as “inadmissible”?
I would posit that the real function of the American criminal juror is to protect their fellow citizens. How do they do that? The JURY stand between the citizen accused and (A) the government, to protect him from the immense power and budget of the government and its ability to incarcerate or kill due to honest error, or false or even politically motivated charges AND (B) they stand between the citizen accused and John Q. Public to protect him and his family by convicting and incarcerating real malefactors to separate such from their future potential victims and discourage/deter potential future malefactors and predators. Sometimes to accomplish function (A) in the case of over zealous, overcharging, or dishonest prosecutors (and such while rare, do exist) – sometimes a little Strong Medicine is required to see justice done. Always remember, the judge rules in a court of law, not a court of justice.
Fundraiser for Michael Desronvil has peaked at $381,855 with the goal being $500K. Gotta love the summary page. Kudos to the writer: “He looked at what she did, not the brand of Zoloft”. Well done.
Stand With the Juror
Lindsay Clancy strangled her children. Cora was 5. Dawson was 3. Callan was 8 months old. Her lawyer stood up in court and admitted she used exercise bands to kill them in the basement after she sent her husband out for takeout. Two were dead when he got home. The baby died three days later. The only argument left was whether three homicides should count.
The country got the full TikTok-diagnostics package. Postpartum. Psychosis. Voices. Trauma. A stack of pill bottles and a sad playlist. The SSRI-medicated mob ran cover like this was a self-care story instead of a triple child killing. They wanted a diagnosis, not a verdict. They wanted her sick, not guilty. They wanted three dead kids memory-holed so nobody had to say the words mother and murderer in the same sentence.
If a father does this, he’s a monster by lunch. No mental health talk. No pill-bottle excuses. No entertainment of feelings. A man kills his kids and the country wants him buried. A woman does it and half the country starts writing her a medical alibi. Personal responsibility for thee, never for her.
One juror held his seat. He looked at what she did, not the brand of Zoloft. So the defense demanded the judge throw him off the jury for “not following reasonable doubt.”
The judge left him on. The jury hung. Mistrial. Now she can be tried again for killing her children instead of getting a standing ovation for her symptoms.
We’re not letting this slide.
If they come for him, and they will, this is to cover security, lawyers, and lost work.
Lindsay killed them.
Stand with him.
https://www.givesendgo.com/standwithjuror
That is spot on, and very well written.
Thanks for posting it.
How outrageous! No one gave anyone any “standing ovations”. Everything about the case was tragic, and no one ever said otherwise, but you MAGAs always have to exaggerate. Clancy was out of her mind when she did what she did, and she tried to kill herself twice. That was the evidence, not just from psychiatrists, but also from her family. Her husband and mother in law both testified that she was a wonderful mother who loved her children until postpartum psychosis took hold. She tried to get help–and was hospitalized for awhile. She reached out to suicide hotlines. She reached out to her psychiatrist’s office, and only got nurse practitioners who obviously failed to appreciate how serious her situation was. If there was reasonable doubt that she was in full control of her mental faculties when she strangled her children, she was not guilty of deliberate murder or lesser-included offenses. That was how the jury was instructed.
Not one of you MAGAs has ever offered any rational explanation for WHY Clancy would kill her children–what would have been her motive if not madness? There was no evidence that she hated them, didn’t want them, or didn’t love them. What you MAGAs keep focusing on is that she killed her children. If you are a lawyer, you would know that since she never denied killing them, if that fact alone was enough to convict her of murder as a matter of law, there would be no reason for a trial. The jury was NOT charged with deciding whether she killed them–they were charged with deciding whether the prosecution proved she did it deliberately while she was in her right mind–or, whether her acts were the product of mental illness. All of them agreed that there was reasonable doubt that she did it deliberately–even the holdout, but he stubbornly refused to acquit her despite the judge’s instructions on the law, and he not only wouldn’t deliberate, he talked on the phone to people. All of this hyperbole about the children being victims and what a terrible thing this was is over the top and misses the point. The issue was WHY–there was no evidence of any motivation other than psychosis–voices telling her she had to do it.
Anyone who deliberately kills children should be permanently removed from society. Period. Psychosis should never be a mitigating factor. By her own admission, Lindsay Clancy killed her children, in a deliberate and well-planned way. She richly deserves the death penalty, but unfortunately candy-ass Massachusetts doesn’t have that option. So, reasonable and responsible jurors should have put her away for the rest of her life. Regretfully, it is apparent there was only one reasonable and responsible juror; the others were weak or had a political agenda, and now Michael Desronvil is being hounded by psychotic harpies in the public, the press and the judicial system. After the three innocent children, the biggest victim is justice.
It’s not “deliberate” if it was done because she was hearing voices telling her to do it, which is “auditory hallucinations”, evidence of psychosis. Psychosis is a complete defense. The State had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she was in her right mind and in full control of her faculties when she killed her children. Even the holdout admitted he had reasonable doubt that she was in her right mind and in control of her actions—she was entitled to be acquitted.
Whoever is spearheading the collection of money for the holdout is distorting the facts and the law, which is unethical.
One time in her life she heard that voice, and it was when she decided to kill the children. WHY did she listen to a voice she only heard that one time???? Sounds like a bunch of Progressive gobbly gook to me
Anyone who deliberately kills children should be permanently removed from society. Period.
If you followed the science you would be borrowing from a molecular biology pathway known as apoptosis.
Apoptosis is the process of programmed cell death. It is used during early development to eliminate unwanted cells; for example, those between the fingers of a developing hand. In adults, apoptosis is used to rid the body of cells that have been damaged beyond repair. Apoptosis also plays a role in preventing cancer. If apoptosis is for some reason prevented, it can lead to uncontrolled cell division and the subsequent development of a tumor.
https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/apoptosis
So why do we in the Western Civilization today not permanently remove individuals who are damaged beyond repair?
Christianity. No other religion in the world teaches to forgive others as they have been forgiven by God, e.g. “the Lord’s Prayer” . This teaching is distinct from other religions, which may focus on justice or moral behavior but not an emphasis on grace and mercy through personal relationships with God.
TL;DR: practice apoptosis on the “damaged beyond repair” individuals vs seek God’s grace and show mercy on them
No es facil
An interesting response – thank you.
While as Christians we are instructed to forgive and show mercy, even Jesus Himself said the ends of justice must be met, and to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. A secular society has no obligation to show mercy but every obligation to punish, on behalf of the victim, the criminal who has violated the law.
As for Lindsay Clancy, Jesus also said, “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” That’s where I stand: justice for the three innocent children.
Family murder-suicide ‐- she tried to kill herself after she was done — happens frequently, and for two main reasons: The parent wants to kill themselves, but fears no one would take the same care of the children that they would, so they do away with them first. Or the parent wants to deny custody of the children to the other parent, and kills them out of feeling, “If I can’t have them, no one can.”
While both scenarios may sound insane, they are reasoned.
She was psychotic—hearing voices telling her to kill herself and her children. You are just making things up.
“. . . she tried to kill herself twice.”
Interesting thing about that.
She *successfully* murdered her three children. Then failed at two suicide attempts. So she was serious about the former, but not about the latter.
Breaking: new Underground Railroad helps lone black juror escape northern white liberals
https://babylonbee.com/news/new-underground-railroad-established-to-help-lone-black-juror-escape-from-angry-white-liberals-in-the-north
@oldmanfromkansas–
HILARIOUS!!!
What ever investigation of the hold out juror should be replicated for the other jurors too. I bet we’d find plenty of misconduct in that group.
More Whac-A-Mole:
“. . . if [Desronvil] did include [on the jury questionnaire] his current restraining order *he would have been disqualified*.” (emphasis added)
That, too, is a fabrication.
A restraining order, current or past, is *not* grounds for disqualification as a juror in MA.
Keep making the law a joke. Go ahead. The system was designed to work in a certain way. So now you don’t get the outcome you want so you attack the jury? Seriously? Makes one want to take Shakespeare’s advice about dealing with lawyers.
#. Aren’t questionnaires checked by officials before seating a jury?
Normal people are ill prepared to hear and see such details of hideous crimes. There have been 2 copycat murders after Clancy became public. I object to the system. Reddington is unhinged evidenced by his DJT request.
plea deal 2nd degree…hideous.
No.
In Massachusetts, no one checks the questionnaires before seating a jury.
Not the “officials”, not the “defense”, not the prosecution”.
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.
“Desronvil obviously lied . . .”
Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true. But it does make you a *chronic* liar.
Do you really think that Reddington would have allowed Desronvil to be seated if he had disclosed his prior arrest and charges for domestic violence in an attack on his wife where he tried to choke her. And he also had a court imposed restraining order against him for beating his nephew.
He was required to disclose all of this in the Confidential Jury Questionnaire.
https://www.mass.gov/doc/confidential-juror-questionnaire/download
If he had disclosed this information, Reddington would have dismissed him in a heartbeat without even bothering to question him at voir dire.
So obviously, Desronvil must have lied in his Questionnaire and committed a crime in doing so.
“disclosed his prior arrest and charges for domestic violence in an attack on his wife where he tried to choke her. And he also had a court imposed restraining order against him for beating his nephew.”
Hell yes, any defense atty would have seated Desronvil on these facts. Clancr committed domestic violence, and so did Desronvil. Clancy used physical violence against someone a generation younger, and so did Desronvil. Desronvil doesn’t see himself as a bad guy, just as somebody who lashed out at family members under stress, so he should have been sympathetic to Clancy.
Desronvil was a defense attorney’s dream juror. He could RELATE to the defendant’s situation.
Isn’t law enforcement part of the judicial system? The questionnaires aren’t checked by law enforcement as background checks?
I’ll believe you…