Link: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c54g7jdmw032o

The lone holdout juror in the trial of Lindsay Clancy has said he "didn't have any doubts" that she was criminally responsible for killing her three children.

"Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses and what the prosecution presents, I thought it was enough proof that she knew exactly what she was doing and planned it," Michael Desronvil said in a statement to CBS News, the BBC's US partner.

The judge declared a mistrial on 4 September after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict following nearly 40 hours of deliberating.

Bless him.

You should probably read the article. Particularly where he said there was reasonable doubt but refused to acknowledge it on paper.

Desronvil said he believed the evidence presented in court showed she had planned the killings.

"I didn't have any doubts," he said in a statement to CBS on Thursday.

"As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence presented."

He didn't have any doubts, but he had doubts.

Let's see what the other jurors said....

The jury foreperson, a retired fifth-grade teacher, described not being able to reach a verdict as "awful" and an "emotional rollercoaster".

She told NBC that Desronvil had "admitted he had reasonable doubt", but as she started filling out the verdict sheets, he apparently said: "But I'm still not going to say that she's not guilty by reason of insanity."

Another juror told local CBS station WBZ-TV that most of the jurors had been "very firm in their stance" from the start and "the stand-alone juror was not the only one that was unwilling to see things from the other side".

But they added that because Desronvil would not "follow" his reasonable doubt nor offer logical reasoning for his position, they felt Clancy had not received a fair trial.

Nobody ever reads the articles smh

There's so much good info in there!

To think someone would read an article before commenting on it. That's crazy talk around here.

What an evil, incompetent person. He should not be allowed to cast votes or make decisions for anyone, including himself.

Further shame on the judge for not issuing clarifying instructions when the jury reported this sociopathic fucker.

He's allowed to hold his position for any reason at all, including he doesn't agree with a defense of insanity--if that's what it was. Likely during jury selection they were asked if they held that bias, and possibly he didn't know, or possibly he lied. But, that's all part of our system. It's imperfect as every such system is.

He claims he tried to explain his reasoning but the rest wouldn't listen. That may be the failure point. If they had listened, maybe they could have persuaded him. Or, maybe they did listen at first and rejected his arguments, then wouldn't listen anymore.

We'll never know what happened in the deliberation room, but the system worked as it should. Having sat on two juries in the past, I have some faith in juries to come to a good decision. In this case, the jury failed in a way that can be accommodated. That is, it was a mistrial, so there'll be another trial.

But they added that because Desronvil would not “follow” his reasonable doubt nor offer logical reasoning for his position, they felt Clancy had not received a fair trial.

“As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence presented.”

Not if he had reasonable doubt.

I keep seeing that word and I just don't know what you're talking about? People post a title with one sentence, that's what we all react to! Article sounds like nerd stuff!

On September 25, 2021, Desronvil’s 13 year old nephew called the Brockton Police and said “please come….my auntie,” before hanging up. When police arrived they found Desronvil and his wife on the front steps of the porch, with Desronvil holding his 6 month old baby. Desronvil tried to tell police that they didn’t need any help in an attempt to get them to leave, but the 13 year old nephew told police that he witnessed Desronvil hit his wife after the woman attempted to take her crying daughter from him in order to comfort her, at which point he assaulted her by grabbing his wife by the neck and throwing her into a bedroom dresser. Desronvil’s mother yelled “YOU’RE EVIL” twice at her son before he was taken away by police.

The charges were dropped several months later, but the ex-wife spoke with NBC10 Boston and said that the charges were only dropped because she was worried about losing custody of her daughter if she testified.

I'm seeing the rightoids talk about this. It doesn't seem like news, anyone care to explain why this is on my feed?

"I had reasonable doubt, but I don't like how it feels to challenge my own biases and I misunderstood or lied during jury selection, so no, I don't have reasonable doubt."

That's the summary of this man.

They're using Lindsey Clancy to justify taking away women's rights.

"Admitting" that in deliberation is not binding in any way.

The only "gotcha" they can pull out is to get him to agree with the verdict. He clearly didn't and did his job admirably.

He did what he thought was right despite immense pressure to just go with the flow.

No, if he had any doubt at all then he should have voted with the rest of the jurors. That's how the law works. A jury is not a place to take a personal stand on a case.

On top of that, this juror lied about his criminal past in order to be selected for the jury. He should have been disqualified from the get go.

He had no doubt she intentionally planned and strangled her three kids and was aware of what she was doing.

He may have doubted other things, but those didn't matter to him as much as that simple fact.

I trust the other jurors account of him admitting he had reasonable doubt over his retelling since he lied about his criminal history in order to get on the jury. It's even more damning to know that his criminal history includes domestic violence against his partner.

Good for you. I guess if you were on the jury you could have made your own choice.

This isn't even an allegation of bribery or coercion or corruption. It's just you not liking his decision as a juror doing exactly what a juror is supposed to do.

You're misunderstanding how a jury works and how the law works.

It is news. You're in a news community. You would know what the news was if you read it.

Oh, so she was acquitted?

Thanks for continuing to show your misunderstanding of this entire case and trial.

Have they arrested the juror yet for making the decision you don't like?

Your ignorance is astounding.

I might not be certain she wasn't crazy, and still don't care because she killed 3 children.

Ok.

The entire case so far had been about whether or not she was in control of herself. No one is disputing whether she killed the kids.

As someone who has served on a jury myself, I have a difficult time criticizing the individual decisions of jurors for cases that I'm not involved in.

Obviously, it's not a vacuum, and being the only holdout isn't a good look... But unless you're sitting there in court every single day, taking notes and deliberating, then your opinion on the choices of individual jurors is completely irrelevant imo.

Criminal court cases are extremely complex, and reading a few news articles about it is not the same as being there. Suggesting that's enough is actually kind of insulting to our justice system.

Even when I'm pretty sure I would disagree had I been in that jury... It's just impossible to know.

literally anything exists

Conservatives: "is this a culture war?"

Seems like you just disagree with the concept of an insanity plea.

I don’t care how any juror comes to their conclusion. Religious views, merit of the facts, an apparition came to them in a dream, it doesn’t matter (except for the case of tampering). Whatever their verdict, that’s it. The fact that this guy is being scrutinized for his verdict is alarming. They go through a selection and vetting process to get on that jury. Once they are on that jury, they can come to any conclusion for any reason. They don't need to explain their verdict. It's just guilty or not guilty. The court can implore them to follow the law, but that doesn’t mean they must. Even if they perjured to get on that jury, the perjury is a separate thing in of itself and sure, charge them, but they cannot be compelled to come to any particular verdict. If they could, then trial by jury would be nothing more than window dressing for authoritarianism.

There are different threshold of doubt that are allowed in various jurisdictions for various trials. Two terms are "beyond a reasonable boubt" and "the preponderance of evidence". The first accepts that you may still have doubts, having not seen the act with your own eyes and the fallibility of witnesses, the other that the balance tips in one direction or other. I don't know of any legal systems that require no doubt at all in the verdict.

All that said, I'd say that jury nullification indicates that the jury is absolutely the right place to take a personal stand, regardless of what the law says. If you have the right to hear all the evidence to indicate that an unjust law was broken, you should still be able to say, "Not guilty." You do in fact have that right in many places, including America. The fact lawyers try their best take sure it doesn't happen doesn't mean it's illegal. Note that unless everyone agrees, this will also result in a hung jury and a mistrial.

We're not talking about various trials here, we're talking about one trial.

Yeah I mean killing someone, much less multiple people, isn't like stubbing your toe. It's kind of a process.

Then you should use the correct terms, or the terms relevant to this case and this topic. The fact of the matter is, the same legal standards that allow the striking down of an unjust law via jury nullification are the same ones that allow the abuse or rejection of a just law, which seems highly relevant to this particular case.

To find Clancy guilty, jurors had to be unanimously convinced beyond reasonable doubt that she intentionally killed her children and that she did not do so as a result of postpartum psychosis, a rare and serious condition.

The jury - nine women and three men - considered a range of options including not guilty by reason of insanity, manslaughter and first-degree murder.

Several jurors have said following the mistrial being declared that the panel was ultimately divided 11-1 in favour of finding Clancy not criminally responsible.

Another juror told local CBS station WBZ-TV that most of the jurors had been "very firm in their stance" from the start and "the stand-alone juror was not the only one that was unwilling to see things from the other side".

But they added that because Desronvil would not "follow" his reasonable doubt nor offer logical reasoning for his position, they felt Clancy had not received a fair trial.

Under Massachusetts law, prosecutors had to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Clancy was criminally responsible for the jury to find her guilty. The defence did not have to prove her mental illness or lack of criminal responsibility.

He said the holdout "would not apply the law of reasonable doubt" as instructed by the judge, adding: "That's not right. And that's why I was upset."

Jury nullification

Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses.

Yes and that's why it was a mistrial.

No, if he had any doubt at all then he should have voted with the rest of the jurors. That's how the law works. A jury is not a place to take a personal stand on a case.

This you?

Yes, I think that since he had stated reasonable doubt, he should have honored that and voted with the rest of the jurors.

Acknowledging he had the right to vote the way he did does not mean his decision is immune from criticism.

It's great that you have that opinion, and that is absolutely your right, however, that is not how the jury system works in America or many other countries, for what I and the designers of the system believe are very good reasons. One reason would be for not convicting people for breaking unjust laws, such as the Fugitive Slave Act. You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I'm having a conversation on a forum about the case. I'm not making any legal decisions that affect this case arguing with people online who want to strip women of their rights because Lyndsey Clancy killed her kids.

I'm not the only one who believes this juror had ulterior motives for the way he voted and that he ignored the law telling him that if he had reasonable doubt he shouldn't vote guilty.

And I don't disagree with any of that, and unless she is unfortunate enough to have two people like that slip through her lawyer's vetting process, it will have no long-term repercussions for her or society in general. On the other hand, having penalties for the decisions jurors make could be very far-reaching, quite possibly as far-reaching as stripping women of their rights.

Anyone working to strip women of their rights based on this one case is doing so nefariously. This isn't a novel case, this isn't the first postpartum psychosis incident.

It's not Lindsey Clancy's fault if bad actors use her case to attack all women.

having penalties for the decisions jurors make

I've never posited that jurors should have penalties for the decisions they make just because I disagree with a juror's decision. To be clear.

Well, then I guess we agree that at the very least this guy whose name I can't be bothered to remember or even look up is probably a shitty person and should be treated with disgust by everyone who meets him (probably the best reason to learn his name), and that if it didn't happen in this case another would have come along that the people trying to remove rights could use as a foil to their means.

That suggests to me that focusing on this loser, or the choice he made that was entirely in his right, will be nothing more than a red herring and it would be better to focus on this case being used as an excuse to remove women's rights.

it would be better to focus on this case being used as an excuse to remove women’s rights.

Yep, that's why I've posted about that very thing myself.

I also think that it is worthy to publicly push back on some of these sexist opinions that are rising from people conflating Lindsey Clancy with all women as if we are a monolith.

Absolutely fair. Hell, even Lemmy users are a pretty small, self-selected bunch and we aren't a monolith.

Hey thanks for having a back and forth with me that didn't devolve into name calling or personal digs. That was nice :)

Well, I'm a real, multi-faceted person, and I have my bad days, but I try to call out behavior and statements and avoid insults. Sometimes it's easier, and this was certainly one of them. Maybe we can argue/discuss again in the future. :D