Lindsay Clancy Verdict Delayed as One Juror Remains Unconvinced

Lindsay Clancy Verdict Delayed as One Juror Remains Unconvinced

All right, uh we’re being told the jury is not in the courtroom.  Um not in the courtroom.  They were brought in one by one and questioned. Every Now the jury is out of the courtroom. Presumably, uh they will be told to come back into the courtroom as a group. So, um got the signals across a little bit there.

 Jury, again, not in the courtroom. As you see Kevin Redington the way he pushed his coffee, uh clearly still upset by whatever This happening right now.  All right. The jury is entering. The court’s now in session. Will you be

seated?  Your honor, for the purpose of the record, present before the court are 12 deliberating jurors and six alternates in the matter of Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy. All other parties are present.  All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk.  You’re welcome.  Um good afternoon, everyone. Uh I just wanted to go over a couple of things uh this afternoon.

 First off, I want to remind you that you are required to follow my instructions on the law as I gave them to you. All right? I also want to, at this point, uh go over uh the instruction that I gave you about reasonable doubt. All right. And so, uh reasonable  doubt. The burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges made against her.

What is proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Well, the term is often used and probably pretty well understood, but it’s not easily defined. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt. For everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.

 A charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if after you’ve compared and considered all of the evidence, you have in your minds an abiding conviction to a moral certainty that the charge is true. When we refer to moral certainty, we mean the highest degree of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs based solely on the evidence that has been put before you in this case.

I’ve told you that every person is presumed to be innocent until they are proved guilty and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. If you evaluate all the evidence and you still have a reasonable doubt remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be acquitted. It’s not enough for the Commonwealth to establish a probability, even a strong probability, that the defendant is more likely to be guilty than not guilty.

That is not enough. Instead, the evidence must convince you of the defendant’s guilt to a reasonable and moral certainty, a certainty that convinces your understanding and satisfies your reason and judgment as jurors who are sworn to act conscientiously on the evidence. This is what we mean by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. All right.

 And with that, I’m going to ask you to uh resume your deliberations.  All right, ladies. Sir, that’s what I said. What?  [snorts]  All right. Sir, this is the next the court is going to recess. Please be seated. I got the first one.  you at sidebar just for a second? All right. Sidebar, um hopefully it’s a

quick one and they go on the record with some explanations. Joseph Krosky Jr., what do you think happened?  It’s not uncommon for a jury to ask for clarification or reinstruction on the law including reasonable doubt. What concerns me is that first part where the judge instructed the jury, “Jurors, follow the instructions as I’ve given them.

” That means to me or signifies to me signals to me that someone reported that there was some sort of discussion of the law taking place in the jury room that they didn’t believe was correct. And why Attorney Reddington is probably so outraged is you’re now reporting what’s going on in deliberations. And it seems to me that that is the type of issue that warrants an immediate mistrial because now they’ve reported to the court things that have taken place during deliberations which is kind of you know, the third rail. You don’t go there. And

I I can only imagine that’s why he’s angry. Had it just been an instruction on reasonable doubt, I don’t think there’s any That’s fairly legion and common. You There’s no concern there, but the way he prefaced it with “Jurors, follow my instruction” really concerns me that something something happened in there that was inappropriate.

 And warranted the individual voir dire of the jurors. Right.  35 35 hours into a trial into a deliberation if you have to do an individual voir dire on something that took place after given to we  in the jury room  room I can all I’m speculating, but I’m sure [snorts] that’s why you know, attorney Reddington is so outwardly angered.

 And now um I at sidebar, we haven’t always had everything presented on the record following the interaction between Judge Sullivan and the jury. Do you think he is going to with the Here we go. Let’s find out together.  All right.  Thank you, Honor. I appreciate that. I I appreciate the fact, your Honor, that you’re allowing us to be heard in public rather than at the sidebar.

The jury The court has an instruction from the foreperson of that jury that’s been working for a week now saying that there’s one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you’ve given him or her on reasonable doubt. And I suggest respectfully that the soft instruction that you gave them saying at the sidebar, “Can you listen to the law as I instruct you?” does not focus on the issue.

 It is the question is not sufficient enough. It does not allow any foundation for a motion to remu- remove the juror who refuses to accept your instructions on the law on reasonable doubt. And if we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of a because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it’s a shame.

 It’s a real shame. And that’s why I object to the court’s ruling. I request that we have further inquiry. I request that we My motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt. right. Come on.  Thank you, Your Honor. Um we have the note from the jury. Um there’s no way to determine what the deliberations are, who’s correct, who’s incorrect, and nor should we attempt to because that’s part of deliberations.

 I think what Your Honor has done by asking each juror if they’re able to follow the law and then giving a general instruction on reasonable doubt is appropriate um under Commonwealth versus Ralph, so we do not have an objection to what uh the the questions or the reinstruction.  All right. Well, I’m sure as parties understand, as they say, the discharge of a deliberating juror is a sensitive undertaking.

Uh I was just specifically responding to the specific question that was asked. Um I don’t feel that I it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations. I don’t feel what’s appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or 11. At this point, I’ve asked if they are able to follow my instructions.

According, they swore earlier that they could. They’ve said tonight at this point that they can. That was specifically addressed towards the specific question. And that’s what I’m doing. So, the defendant’s objection is noted uh and we will uh be in recess on this uh at this time. Thank you.  The court All right.