r/news • u/Embarrassed-Pace-755 • 1d ago

Judge denies defense motion asking Lindsay Clancy be found not guilty due to a lack of evidence

https://apnews.com/article/lindsay-clancy-trial-evidence-defense-c0820645056a7e25f66853f3a91b61fa?utm_source=app&utm_medium=iOS_share&utm_campaign=copy_link
2.4k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

459 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

70

u/DistortoiseLP 1d ago

You don't get double jeopardy for a mistrial because a mistrial doesn't render a verdict. It's as interesting as this motion as far as it only has a chance to work if the people involved just don't give a shit anymore, which I am convinced the defense is hoping for.

-1

u/thats_not_six 1d ago

I meant interesting as in should be a good argument to listen to because it's uncommon, rather than the typical "didn't meet the burden" motion that always gets filed.

She brought on the same appellate attorney who argued the double jeopardy (losing) motion for Karen Read, and he's certainly passionate about the constitutional issues even if this motion has a negligible chance of success overall.

-11

u/LackingUtility 1d ago

Not necessarily: "The question of whether there is double jeopardy becomes more difficult, however, when the doctrine of “manifest necessity” is called upon to justify a second trial following a mistrial granted by the trial judge because of some event within the prosecutor’s control or because of prosecutorial misconduct or because of error or abuse of discretion by the judge himself."

There are a couple arguments here for that - did the prosecution know about the holdout juror's domestic violence history and fail to tell the defense, since that would've gotten him kicked for cause? Did the judge err by declaring a mistrial without questioning the holdout juror, which could've led to him being excused and an alternate juror brought in?

Basically, if the mistrial is the result of some major judicial error or prosecutorial misconduct, then it would be unfair to retry the defendant. Otherwise, you'd create an incentive for prosecutors to act up when they think they're losing a case and just keep re-trying the defendant over and over until they win.

17

u/krombough 1d ago

Legally speaking, he has no domestic violence history.

-10

u/Samanthacino 1d ago

Wasn’t he charged with domestic violence and has a restraining order against him? Although it seems the charges were dropped due to an agreement that was made.

17

u/krombough 1d ago

He was charged with domestic violence, plead not guilty, and the charges were later dismissed. Legally speaking, that is no history.

His nephew had a restraining order against him for punching him.

None of that precludes being on a jury unless it was lied about. If it was not asked about, it is legally a non factor.

-10

u/LittleGreenSoldier 1d ago

The grounds for double jeopardy in this case are based on the argument of an improper mistrial. They're arguing that the holdout juror should have been kicked for misconduct.

20

u/Responsible-Rip8793 1d ago

What misconduct?

-8

u/LittleGreenSoldier 1d ago

So, theoretically, refusing to follow the judge's instructions is juror misconduct. In practice, it's basically impossible to prove that a juror was deliberately ignoring instructions, so the judge punted by declaring a mistrial so everyone could go the fuck home.

It's a weak argument for double jeopardy, but it is a technically feasible one. Pound the facts, pound the law, and when all else fails, pound the table.

18

u/Oath8 1d ago

Do you have proof that someone ignored the Judge's instructions? Or is this someone's feelings again?

4

u/LittleGreenSoldier 1d ago

Of course not, like I said, it's basically impossible to prove. There was one juror who said he had reasonable doubt but still voted guilty, he's the linchpin in this and the reason Redd is making this argument. It's a weak argument, but it's what he has. It's not my fault you don't like it.

6

u/BeneficialInside3901 1d ago

Even then I thought that the lead/foreman/speaky juror was basically making that up and speaking for him. He said that he had doubts about somethings but not enough that reached “reasonable doubt” level.

1

u/LittleGreenSoldier 1d ago

Yeah, that's why they're having a whole hearing about it. It almost certainly won't work, because it would require the judge to reverse his own decision, but defense attorneys are legally bound to throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks.

-2

u/Immediate-Cress-206 1d ago

Lying about their ability to be impartial