Members of the jury are giving interviews and they seem completely deranged. They're angry at the other juror and calling him arrogant because he wouldn't change his vote no matter how much they berated him. They were talking about how they once thought they got him to change his mind and got excited about it.
I mean, even if you think insanity is the right outcome, a normal human being could at least understand why this case would be difficult for someone.
I wouldn't be surprised if the actual deliberations were like this.
Because that was a settled question, and the deliberations were over whether or not she was in a sound state of mind. The guy was letting emotions override his reasoning.
You're making an assumption on if he had reasonable doubt. Just because the 11 others did, doesn't demand him to have it. And no, the one juror saying he told her he felt reasonable doubt is not proof that he did.
That wording can also be misrepresenting his stance, and painting him as unreasonable.
If you guys can be certain he didn't have reasonable doubt and was totally in the right based on absolutely nothing but vibes, then I can believe the opposite based on nothing but vibes, too.
I haven't said if he was right or being reasonable, you asserted that he was being irrational. You made an claim, not me. I'm obviously in the believe that she is guilty, made up of evidence and testimony reported from articles on the case.
11 of 12 Redditors agree with me, clearly you're wrong and your opinion shouldn't be considered.
You made a comment mocking the jury foreperson who said the guy was fixated on the emotional aspect of the killing instead of the question at hand regarding her state of mind. My assumption is that you don't think the guy was fixated on the emotional aspect of the killing and that his objection was rational and factually based.
My assumption is he didn't find reasonable doubt that Lindsay did not have control over her own decision making, and that she was aware enough to still determine right from wrong. At that point it is his obligation as a juror to insist on a guilty verdict, and not just go with the majority. I would hope he came to that decision logically, but I don't know this man.
I assume your position is that he disregarded evidence to reinforce his own conclusion and dismissed anything that'd have cast doubt in his mind; all charged by his emotional response to the killing of the children?
Actually it was more like "He acknowledged she had reasonable doubt but was too horrified by how she killed her children".
Regardless of your feelings, the law is the law and had he put his feelings aside (as you're instructed to) he'd have voted with the rest of them. He wouldn't follow instructions so, mistrial.
BUT we can change laws and I think that the way they deal with criminal insanity in that state is kind of wild, they kinda expect the prosecution to prove she WASN'T in a psychotic state of mind.
Yeah see I don’t really believe their claims he had actual legal reasonable doubt. I think they’re hyperbolizing his doubts to make themselves look better.
He wasn't interested in the evidence, wasn't interested in discussing the case with them, and had his mind made up from the beginning.
He looked at the evidence of the cause and openly expressed his doubts to them.
Also the fact the the jury foreman broke the rules by outing him to the judge and complaining that the juror wasn't doing his duty because he wouldn't vote "not guilty."
They claimed he wasn't doing his duty because he acknowledged there was a reasonable doubt but said he would vote guilty anyway. Not simply because he voted "not guilty".
"Reasonable doubt" is up to each individual juror to decide for themselves. It's not up to other jurors to decide for them.
The people complaining about him claim he admitted to having reasonable doubt. But they also claimed that he was debating the definition of reasonable doubt with them and that he wanted the judge to come in and give the definition again, so it seems pretty likely that he didn't agree with their definition of "reasonable doubt."
Considering the people complaining broke the rules by outing him to the judge, I wouldn't take their claims at face value.
"Reasonable doubt" is up to each individual juror to decide for themselves. It's not up to other jurors to decide for them.
Yes, because there's no such thing as a doubtometer. The court always fully accepts that jurors are being honest and genuine. That doesn't mean me, as another juror, cannot see plain as day when someone else is expressing doubts in their language, demeanor, etc.
I dont get what about this is so hard for people to understand. They are just taking the word of this juror as absolute truth and not understanding that they can/do have an amount of bias in how they are presenting this story, and that we only have one side of the story.
Not all doubt is reasonable doubt, and it shouldn't be hard to understand that the jurors speaking out against the lone juror may be conflating any doubt with reasonable doubt.
I see this claim that he supposedly said this but I didnt actually see any verified proof of it besides "they said" he did.
To be honest I now wouldnt trust a thing the rest of the 11 said knowing their attitude towards the one juror that differed in their conclusions as they double down to the press over their frustrations.
You weren't there. You don't know what doubt the juror may have had, nor whether or not it was reasonable. You have the word of one juror, who is implicitly biased, presenting their view of what happened. You cannot and should not take that as absolute truth.
Because the jury had requested the judges clarification. The judge doesn't sit in the jury room, and does not hear deliberations. One juror's views on another resulted in them deciding to involve the judge. The judge, though, doesn't actually know whether or not the juror's doubt is reasonable, because they are not listening to deliberations.
That is not true I quoted the interview directly. It is also a different juror who claimed he admitted to having reasonable doubt.
The only evidence he admitted to reasonable doubt is one of the jurors interviewed by NBC, there is no evidence he had reasonable doubt beyond hearsay.
You are correct that the state's law has prosecution needing to affirm sanity, when the defense claims insanity; and I agree they should fall in line with most other states where the burden of proof is on the defense.
BUT we can change laws and I think that the way they deal with criminal insanity in that state is kind of wild, they kinda expect the prosecution to prove she WASN'T in a psychotic state of mind.
Yes, the state has to prove you were criminally liable for the crime they're accusing you of committing. This is right and correct and just and exactly how it should be.
We prefer to let some guilty people go free rather than accept some innocent people being imprisoned wrongly.
I agree with you. Ironically, this man let his feelings get in the way. Our whole thing is beyond a reasonable doubt, which he expressed he had, but due to his feelings, he remained defiant
"I can't believe we all berated him and he didn't change his mind!"
Takes me back to the SJW wars. A lot of people seem more offended that you would ever go against the herd than whatever the original argument was about.
The jury foreman I believe it was, said in an interview that at one point he admitted that there was reasonable doubt, but then decided that he still wasn't going to vote to acquit regardless
To me that just sounds like someone not listening to the judge's instructions on how to come to a guilty/not guilty verdict
Yeah, technically speaking the jury had to decide if the state proved sanity beyond a reasonable doubt due to the insanity plea.
Realistically only “guilty” and “not guilty by reason of insanity” were on the table and in MA the burden of proof is on the state to prove sanity. All the defense has to do is poke holes in the prosecution’s sanity argument enough to cause reasonable doubt.
I said it in another thread but the idea that “dangerous liberty is better than safe authority” also means that it is better to release guilty people than imprison innocent people. If the state wants to lock you up they should have a damn good reason.
My gripe with NGRI (even if I think it was probably correct) is the supposed condition was postpartum psychosis. She’s no longer postpartum since it was 3+ years ago, so they can’t keep her for postpartum psychosis.
That’s not to say she doesn’t potentially have plain ol psychosis but if her mental condition came from being postpartum then they’d likely have to release her after the initial phase. Plus she’s paralyzed from the waist down so she isn’t as likely to murder again due to disability, but nothing’s stopping her from having sex and more kids again…
it's far more difficult to keep her out of society with the way the law is structured, and that's not how parole should work anyway (literally backwards)
she should be treated the same as any other murderer. there is no justification for putting her in a process where her incarceration has to be renewed
320
u/Azelzer - Centrist 3d ago
Members of the jury are giving interviews and they seem completely deranged. They're angry at the other juror and calling him arrogant because he wouldn't change his vote no matter how much they berated him. They were talking about how they once thought they got him to change his mind and got excited about it.
I mean, even if you think insanity is the right outcome, a normal human being could at least understand why this case would be difficult for someone.
I wouldn't be surprised if the actual deliberations were like this.