The defense lawyer in the Lindsay Clancy trial has successfully convinced most of the jury that “reasonable doubt” applies to whether she was temporarily insane or not, and not whether she committed the murders or not:
Tensions reached a boiling point in the Lindsay Clancy trial on Friday as jurors continued to deliberate, with one holdout refusing to agree with 11 others.
Clancy’s lawyer Kevin Reddington yesterday begged the judge to switch out the holdout juror who, the jury foreperson claims, is refusing to follow the law when it comes to reasonable doubt. The jury, who is made up of nine women and three men, have been deliberating for 36 hours.
It now appears that the juror is certain Clancy is guilty, and is voting that way. Reddington claimed on Thursday that they were doing so despite having ‘reasonable doubt’.
‘That juror told you that he would be able to apply the law to the facts as you asked him, and based on this note from this juror, it clearly and unequivocally indicates that they are basically 11 to one, and this person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not guilty verdict,’ Reddington said in court.
Earlier, the defense lawyer also accused the judge of ‘glossing over the issue’ and being ‘soft’ on the reasonable doubt instruction.
The actual standard laid down by the Supreme Court is as follows:
The Court held in In re Winship that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect the accused against conviction “except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.”
And what are those facts necessary to constitute the crime of first-degree murder in Massachusetts?
To secure a murder conviction, prosecutors must demonstrate three primary elements:
- Unlawful Killing: The victim’s death must directly result from the defendant’s actions, without legal justification such as self-defense.
- Malice Aforethought: This concept encompasses intent to kill, intent to cause significant harm, or an act demonstrating extreme disregard for human life.
- Causation: A clear causal link must exist between the defendant’s conduct and the death of the victim.
First-degree also requires “deliberate planning, exceptional cruelty, or a killing committed during another serious felony”.
Since there is no objective way to establish the facts of someone’s sanity or insanity at any given time, let alone a specific moment in the past, “reasonable doubt” cannot apply to someone’s mental state or no one could ever be convicted of murder. Indeed, the more heinous and savage the crime, the more easily “reasonable doubt” of their sanity must be applied.
Now, I understand the difference between the actual black-letter law and so-called “case law” and judicial precedent, but that doesn’t change the fact that “reasonable doubt” can never be applied to an individual’s mental state, because Die Gedanken sind frei.
UPDATE: The judge is also on very shaky ground. His instructions are observably false. The jury can nullify any law. It, and not the judge, are the legal authority.
He then reminded the jury that they must follow the law as he gave it to them. ‘I wanted to remind you, as I instructed you earlier, it is your duty as jurors to accept the law as I gave it to you,’ Sullivan said. ‘You must follow the law as I give it to you, whether you agree with it or not. ‘With that, you may now resume your deliberations.’
UPDATE: Judge Sullivan entered the courtroom and said the jury had sent a note stating they could not reach a verdict. The judge announced he intends to declare a mistrial.
