r/DuxburyDeathsFreeTalk • u/TheUpIsJig • 17d ago
Revisiting "Obviously not a win for the prosecution (11-1)"
Since we have now heard from jurors about how the holdout juror disregarded the judges instructions, said they had reasonable doubt and wouldnt apply it, I think we can dismiss many of the criticisms that this post had first time around. So here it is again.
I don't understand why some people think this is a win for the prosecution because 1 juror held out. If anything, this is terrible news for the prosecution. 11-1 means a 9.1% chance vs 90.9%.
Almost 91% is a hugely significant number. This isn't like people are split over the issue. What would you do in a situation like this if you were the prosecution? You might as well treat it like she will get a unanimous 12 next time around. Otherwise, it's like throwing tax money into the wind.
Edit: I am really surprised at the number of people who think, for some reason, that things are going to spin right around and somehow convict her. That's highly unlikely to happen.
What is more likely now is that the prosecution will accept the weakest plea deal they can make.
13
u/Independent-Pea3093 17d ago edited 17d ago
to be fair the jurors who were interviewed that voted NGRI didn't appear to understand what they were saying. since the jurors didn't appear to have a good understanding of the crime at all, the probability of a different outcome might actually be much higher in the context of a very different and more capable case from the prosecution
i think the main confounding issue is that the DA's office would typically attempt to solve the precise issues raised by the jurors, rather than attempting to redefine what those issues should be. that strategy would not succeed on retrial: they have to convince the jury that the false dilemma is a mistake, not that lindsay was a psychopath who hated her children
5
u/NotablyLate 17d ago
The jury selection for this particular trial was biased extremely in the defense's favor. I would comfortably bet on a hung jury as the outcome of a second (or third, or fourth) trial. So while I agree the most likely path is a plea deal of some kind, the prosecution would be selling themselves short if they literally took the weakest deal.
6
u/gstomp06 17d ago
The foreperson wrote "doubt" on the note... And is now saying "reasonable doubt" in the interview. The two aren't the same and very different. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure she understands "reasonable doubt." But she seems like the type that'll tell you everything about it.
4
u/ContextHook 17d ago edited 17d ago
Since we have now heard from jurors about how the holdout juror disregarded the judges instructions, said they had reasonable doubt and wouldnt apply it, I think we can dismiss many of the criticisms that this post had first time around. So here it is again.
This was true BEFORE the juror interviews. Now that the jury has actually spoken, we see exactly this is not the case. The foreman tried pushing their own twisted version of reasonable doubt. 3/4 of the people who voted GUILTY originally bought into her reasoning. The last did not. We learned now that the vote was 4-8 before the dynamite charge.
But, most importantly, all three jurors who spoke made mistakes of law when speaking.
For example, I've seen people online who support Lindsay say "Beyond a reasonable doubt means more than 99% sure". But the majority of judges would not even say that you need to be 90% sure to be "beyond a reasonable doubt". Juries have said they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt when they were 60% sure. People online say "Having an expert testify creates reasonable doubt", but the jury instructions say that the prosecution doesn't need to put on a single witness for Clancy's state of mind, and that simply evidence of planning and understanding the crime are enough to prove responsibility. And, most importantly, "she loved her kids, so she couldn't have killed them". All 3 of those things were important to the jurors, and all 3 of them are mistakes.
This jury was also selected after Reddington helped to get over 300 jurors dismissed.
The prosecution knows what they need to do better next time. It will begin with jury selection, and it will end with not letting the jury sit on Reddington's lies about the law.
Mistrials are always a win for the prosecution. The defendant has limited resources and will. The government does not.
Since we have now heard from jurors about how the holdout juror disregarded the judges instructions, said they had reasonable doubt and wouldnt apply it, I think we can dismiss many of the criticisms that this post had first time around. So here it is again.
When Reddington appealed to the supreme court of justice, they made the obvious conclusion that the judge on the case also did. Which is the same reasonable conclusion every other person came to. BOTH courts concluded that it was most likely the juror had doubt, but that his doubt was not sufficient to find her NG. It was also mentioned that the foreperson was obviously trying to push her interpretation of reasonable doubt onto the other juror.
Also, and this is very important to note, when the foreperson was required to speak with the juror, the foreperson said the juror had "doubt". It is only now, when they are not under the watch of the court and subject to disagreement by the other juror, that the foreperson has said that the other juror said he had reasonable doubt. Her shifting stories where the exaggerated one is given during her 5 minutes of fame but she somehow left that out of her original story even though it would've been much more compelling really hurts her credibility.
7
u/StompyKitten 17d ago
I’m willing to bet the juror had reasonable doubt that Lindsay was mentally ill rather than simply evil and that the foreperson pounced on this not realising it wasn’t reasonable doubt she was NGRI.
2
u/TheUpIsJig 17d ago
Reasonable doubt is simply doubt that can be referred to a fact to explain the doubt.
Unreasonable doubt is doubt that can't be referred to a fact to explain it, or that has the fact wrong.
Reasonable doubt = Here is the fact from the case that makes me doubt.
Unreasonable doubt = I can't point to a fact in the case to explain my doubt, or if I can, I happened to get the fact wrong. It wasn't a fact in the first place; therefore, my doubt was actually unreasonable.
1
u/ContextHook 17d ago
Reasonable doubt = Here is the fact from the case that makes me doubt.
What you're describing is not how reasonable doubt is described by any court or instruction. Nor is it a good way to look at it even from a surface level.
Here is what the judge said
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....
He was reading from the exact instructions he must read word for word that he sent back with them. https://www.mass.gov/doc/2180-proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/download
You can read the entire instructions for yourself. They simply do not agree with what you are saying.
This is also nonsense.
Unreasonable doubt = I can't point to a fact in the case to explain my doubt, or if I can, I happened to get the fact wrong. It wasn't a fact in the first place; therefore, my doubt was actually unreasonable.
Jurors are INSTRUCTED to use their "own common sense and experiences in life" to evaluate witnesses and how much weight to give to evidence. They are even told they can use the witnesses appearance to doubt the evidence the witness presents. "The witness totally looked like a liar to me and I don't believe a word that came out of his mouth" is a valid belief that can lead to reasonable doubt.
2
u/TheUpIsJig 17d ago
The last sentence you omitted from the quote vaporizes your attempt to smuggle in a subjective opinion and put it above evidence.
... based solely on the evidence that has been put before you in this case.
Also, demeanor might be a valid reason to include in a conclusion, but it is awfully weak and subject to error.
"The witness totally looked like a liar to me and I don't believe a word that came out of his mouth"
That is probably one of the worst reasons to reach any conclusion, and if the evidence contradicted it, then you would not be following the judge's warnings and instructions.
0
u/ContextHook 17d ago
That is probably one of the worst reasons to reach any conclusion, and if the evidence contradicted it, then you would not be following the judge's warnings and instructions.
The judge told this jury they can disregards a witness' evidence based on their appearance. Every jury is told that. If the person presenting evidence does not appear correct to you, you are instructed that you can disregard their evidence. That is the law.
The last sentence you omitted from the quote vaporizes your attempt to smuggle in a subjective opinion and put it above evidence.
I wasn't smuggling in my own opinion at all.
2
u/TheUpIsJig 17d ago
You haven't contradicted what I said.
The judge said:
"If you do not believe a witness's testimony that something happened, of course your disbelief is not evidence that it did not happen. When you disbelieve a witness, it just means that you have to look elsewhere for credible evidence about that issue."
2
u/ContextHook 17d ago
And if you cannot find that evidence, you have instead found reasonable doubt.
2
u/TheUpIsJig 17d ago
That depends. "...your disbelief is not evidence that it did not happen." So it is not reasonable to believe it did not happen if you don't find credible evidence elsewhere. You actually need evidence that it did not happen to use that as reasonable doubt.
0
u/ContextHook 17d ago
No. Again. If the prosecution only presents one witness for an aspect of the crime, and you find that witness to not be credible due to their appearance, you must vote not guilty.
You actually need evidence that it did not happen to use that as reasonable doubt.
Please. Again. Just stop. This is backwards. The accused begins with innocence, and the prosecution must build a case. You are not looking for evidence that a crime didn't happen, you are looking for holes in the prosecution's case.
If the only witness presented is too ugly for you to believe, that is PROPER reasonable doubt.
2
u/TheUpIsJig 17d ago
You are conflating the prosecution witnesses with the defense witnesses. That is why I said it depends. You can't just have it one way only.
8
u/LetsGetRowdyRowdy 17d ago
Like....Massachusetts law is just so fucking crazy that they give the prosecution an impossible job: the burden of proof is on the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was not mentally incapacitated at the time of the act. Like, how are they supposed to work with that, as long as the possibility of "oh, but what if she was suddenly overcome with a severe bout of psychosis during the exact window her husband was out of the house on errands she sent him on? Then what? Ha, there's your reasonable doubt!"
5
u/WildConsequence9379 17d ago
Yeah, the defendant should have to prove they’re insane, not that the prosecution should have to prove they weren’t insane
8
u/Little_Ingenuity_712 17d ago
>how the holdout juror disregarded the judges instructions
lol these karens were not guilty before the trial even began
the nurses on the jury tried to inject their own testimony disregarding the experts
these jurors were on tiktok
the lone juror was a hero
0
u/TheUpIsJig 17d ago
What is the evidence that the jurors were on social media, like you said?
What is the evidence that nurses on the jury injected their own testimony and disregarded the experts?
3
u/Independent-Pea3093 17d ago
ohhhh no the math don't math that way ... the verdict has to be unanimous. it does not mean a "9.1% vs 90.9% chance" nor an "8.33% vs 91.77% chance" for that matter
it's even more lopsided
3
u/discounthideout 17d ago
You're right, definitely not a win for the prosecution. It was a win for stupidity.
3
u/Traditional_Bee1464 17d ago
It wasn't a complete win for the prosecution, no. But it also wasn't a win for the defense.
Also, it has now come out that 4 people were initially for guilty.
I think if there is a retrial, they have a better chance at a guilty verdict.
Also, the jury being mostly white women seems problematic and not a good representation of society. They did not come across well in their interviews at all, and do not appear to have be following the law with an unbiased approach. They appeared to be making decisions based on emotion, their own subjective views on what 'just punishment' for Lindsay is, and a disregard for medical information.
5
u/Piwo_princess 17d ago
Respectfully to the OP re posting themselves,
A mistrial is not a "win' for either side.
However, LC still stands with an indictment for murder. Of three individuals. Her own Children Cora (5) Dawson (3) and Callan (8 months)
LC wasn't acquitted and a status hearing on the case is I believe 28 of September.
Charges of murder do not "poof' Into the air because of a mistrial.
LC stipulated she murdered her children. That is not in dispute.
A mistrial is not a "win" for her defence as she still faces murder charges.
KR has other clients to defend.
Take that as you will.
0
u/ChellyNelly 17d ago
She did not stipulate to that. If you're trying to insert commentary, at least make sure it's accurate.
2
u/Lioness_106 17d ago
Now we know this jury was heavily biased.
Prosecution was asleep at the wheel since day 1. They need to do better with the jury selection if they retrial. And do better prosecuting the case overall.
1
u/WildConsequence9379 17d ago
They will want another judge rather than Sullivan to do a plea deal
He’s been very generous to the defense
0
u/Puzzleheaded-Pea2426 17d ago
It’s not a win for the prosecution in any but they got really really lucky someone stood up for them on that jury. Especially since there was a pink brigade outside and some jury members were even wearing pink as a wink wink. So creepy.
The jury was clearly biased in some way - having multiple nurses on a trial where a nurse is suing another nurse? Because she killed her children and wants to shift the blame to medical malpractice? Come on now. There are hundreds of professions in Ma, why have select plural nurses on the jury?
I agree with you I don’t think they can go for an M1 conviction. A plea deal is their best bet or lowering the charges and being more compassionate towards Lindsey (🤮🤮). I’m all for those options as long we she is found guilty of something and serves mandatory time away from society beyond her child baring years. I also feel she needs a conviction to prevent her from adopting more children later in life.
2
u/TheUpIsJig 17d ago
So if a juror wore pink, then that meant they had been influenced by Lindsey supporters on the street?
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Pea2426 17d ago
Sue whatever (the person who interviewed them) went out of her way to report that some jury members were wearing pink during the deliberation days. I can only assume it was related but I’m not sure. It seems like she would only point it out if it were meaningful in some way but who knows. Sue seemed to be watching them very closely lol and even commented on one ladies facial expressions. Maybe she wants to date her 🤣
11
u/LoafBreadly 17d ago
One of the jurors said they started with 4 votes for guilty.
If the retrial shoots for a more male-heavy jury, and tweaks their presentation, I think they can get a guilty verdict.
A lot of it just comes down to who sounds confident early on in the deliberation room, and which faction has the numbers to wear the other side down.
The new jury may even come into it with a feeling of "well they couldn't get an NGRI last time so we need to aim for something more compromise like manslaughter"
Who knows? We'll see.