r/BlackPeopleTwitter • u/MGLLN • 21h ago

Could probably hear the “FOH!!” from space

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

12.8k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

161

u/ghouly-cooly 20h ago

2 other male jurors decidedly voted not guilty. Not to acquit that's a different thing altogether, acquittance was not available. Not guilty by reason of insanity was the option. He even admitted he had reasonable doubt that she was guilty yet out of spite didn't vote the same way as the other 11 jurors.

247

u/G0G0Gadget00 20h ago

He didn't admit it, that is what they said he admitted.

48

u/ThisIsKev 17h ago

Goddam! I LIKE YOU! Too many people living off of hearsay and don't even think twice about it.

9

u/Time-Maintenance2165 17h ago

And even if he said it, it doesn't mean that he didn't change his mind as they continued to deliberate.

-1

u/Brilliant-Field2179 12h ago

They probably got him in some kind of linguistic trap "Haha he said it he said it!!!l" bs

-43

u/ghouly-cooly 20h ago

Well since he hasn't come out to the media to defend his position or tell his side of the story then the other people's representation is all we have to go off. Even the judge (allegedly) had to explain what reasonable doubt was to him multiple times.

29

u/Renfel 19h ago

He doesn't owe you or anyone else anything. 

-25

u/ghouly-cooly 19h ago

He doesn't owe anyone anything true, but then don't be surprised when people believe a viewpoint to a story when there are no other contrasting ones.

24

u/Sea-Consequence7156 18h ago

And then don't be surprised when people, rightly, point out you only know one side of the story

-11

u/ghouly-cooly 18h ago

And then dong be suprised when people believe that side of the story when he won't correct people.

12

u/TwoXModsSavedMyLife 17h ago

So people just pick the facts they want. Don't need anyone involved to speak up to get us to that point. That's just the default.

1

u/ghouly-cooly 13h ago

I'm listening to the people who were involved

4

u/TwoXModsSavedMyLife 13h ago

And you liked what they had to say so you're going with it. I get you.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Sea-Consequence7156 17h ago

Yeah but I don't think highly of people like you anyway so not great loss

1

u/ghouly-cooly 13h ago

"people like you" what's that supposed to mean?

2

u/Sea-Consequence7156 13h ago

What do you mean what's that supposed to mean

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Typing_real_slow 13h ago

They mean conservatives, why did you ask like it was a mystery?

→ More replies (0)

10

u/ls20008179 20h ago

Jury nullification is legal

23

u/ghouly-cooly 20h ago

That's for not guilty verdicts when they disagree with the law, not for imposing guilty verdicts

-15

u/ls20008179 20h ago

It works both ways

22

u/ghouly-cooly 20h ago

It actually does not. And it requires a full jury agreement not for a single juror. A judge can even set aside a whole guilty verdict if they believe the verdict was reached against the law and the defendant can appeal.

-9

u/Nathan45453 ☑️ 20h ago

Going this hard to defend a baby murderer is crazy.

14

u/ghouly-cooly 20h ago

Not defending her. Want justice done and I think there's enough doubt to warrant a nit guilty by reason of insanity and to be remanded into a psychiatric facility for the next few decades at least rather than prison.

-4

u/Vhu 19h ago

Any source on “the next few decades?”

Everything I can find says MA has no set standard for the length of mandatory medical evaluation.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Confident_Ad_5345 19h ago

nah this is about the integrity of the justice system as a whole. it is for exactly the people you are most certain are guilty that you need to be morally comfortable letting free of the prosecution doesn’t appropriately prove the case. the benefit of the doubt has to rest with one of the two sides of the case and its important that it rests with the defense here and always

11

u/lift_1337 19h ago

It absolutely does not work both ways. While you can't be punished legally for how you vote on a jury, that's a different concept than jury nullification. Jury nullification is *specifically* voting not guilty even when you think they did it, typically because you think the punishment or law is unjust in the first place (i.e. "nullifying" the law). Notably, if everyone on the jury votes that way, then that's the end of the trial, the defendant is found not guilty and they can never be tried again thanks to double jeopardy protections.

The reverse, voting guilty even when you think they didn't do it, is decidedly not the end of the line and will likely be followed up by appeal. And in extreme cases, the defendant's lawyer can enter a motion to have the conviction overturned and the judge can grant that. They cannot do the same for a not guilty verdict.

8

u/G0G0Gadget00 18h ago

That isn't how that works, especially in the court of law. The judge did not have to explain to him (again, you are just making stuff up), he had to explain it to the jury. He didn't single any juror out. So all you have is conjecture.

Frankly, these three women should not even be talking about this, but they want their claim to fame. They are not (technically) allowed to speak about what jurors said, arguments inside, and how other jurors voted. Here we are, though.

-1

u/ghouly-cooly 18h ago

Yep here we are, where 1 juror made a hung jury and a mistrial for what seems to be no good reason.

4

u/G0G0Gadget00 17h ago

Yes, there was a hung jury, but the defense tried to get it the hold out removed and the judge denied it because it was completely legal what he decided.

I love the Internet, people can just talk without knowing a single thing even though the knowledge is there to learn.

0

u/ghouly-cooly 13h ago

It's completely legal what he decided true. But what he decuded made no sense

6

u/rop_top 18h ago

It is not the job of jurors in this country to justify their decisions made in a court room. It their job to do the best they can in the delivery of justice. This is what he believed to be the justified decision.

0

u/ghouly-cooly 18h ago

You're right, but we can still call him out on it being a wack thing to do because he's not accomplished anything other than a retrial where she could still be sent to a psychiatric institution rather than jail. It's a very odd thing when only 1 juror of 12 has a completely different verdict and usually it's not based in reason or logic.

5

u/pompousrompus 15h ago

Who cares if it’s an odd thing? That’s the whole point of a jury. Being a holdout isn’t bad unless you only root for one outcome

1

u/rop_top 17h ago

When you've got 11 other people arguing against you, what is the point of arguing at all? Any arguments he could put up would likely be immediately dog piled by the 11 other people that already made up their mind. Not to mention, reasonable people can absolutely disagree about the exact same data. It happens every day, all the time. 

33

u/sillyadam94 20h ago

Wow, he sure sounds like One Angry Man

-15

u/ShamanicCrusader 19h ago

Yeah the others were yelling at him so loud they could hear it next door. Then 3 of them came out to the public to complain and he is the angry one

Typical racist shit where the black man is always the aggressive one even when being antagonized

You must not be black if that is your take. Go away larper

36

u/Southerngurl89 19h ago

It’s a play on the title of the movie 12 Angry Men.  It’s about jury deliberations during a murder trial; they weren’t literally calling him angry. 

15

u/zhemao 19h ago

It's a movie reference ... https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/

-7

u/ShamanicCrusader 18h ago

Ive seen the movie and got the reference

Given the subreddit its distasteful

You would feel differently if youve been in a situation where others are getting emotional and project their own aggression onto you because they need you to be the angry black guy

7

u/WordWordNvmber 18h ago

"Those anti-prison women are all racist" is a bit silly.

2

u/ShamanicCrusader 18h ago

Calling a calm black man angry is racist

Its a common racist epithet. We are always perceived as aggressive even when being antagonized

Whats more is the movie had an angry juror that was racist and belligerent. You are portraying him in a terrible light because he did not agree with a room full of people yelling at him

2

u/WordWordNvmber 18h ago

Who said the word "angry"?

6

u/sillyadam94 12h ago

I did, when I made a reference to the movie “12 Angry Men.”

0

u/LordElrondHubbard1 17h ago

Should just call the juror what he is. A fucking moron.

1

u/ShamanicCrusader 16h ago

Anyone who disagrees with me is a moron
Nice

0

u/LordElrondHubbard1 16h ago

Anyone who decides they can interpret the law better than judges and lawyers and 11 other jurors is 100% a moron.

1

u/ShamanicCrusader 16h ago

You are ironically the one deciding that you know better than the judges the law if you believe he did anything wrong

He disagreed with you and thus it must be a crime in your mind. The judge thought he was fine. The court system says he is fine

The only one saying he did something wrong is you. You are telling on yourself

0

u/LordElrondHubbard1 14h ago

Oh I dont think he committed a crime or should be punished. I just think hes a moron.

1

u/ShamanicCrusader 7h ago

Why do you think he is a moron?

30

u/ShamanicCrusader 19h ago

He said he had doubt yall twist his words to mean reasonable doubt

18

u/IBetThisIsTakenToo 17h ago

The judge even clarified than “reasonable doubt” doesn’t mean “any possible doubt”. You’re allowed to concede that a doubt exists without accepting it

-1

u/ghouly-cooly 19h ago

Did he say that himself? He hasn't commented on it as far as I'm aware.

6

u/ThaRealSunGod 18h ago

You say that he admitted it and now you say he hasn't commented on it 🤨

1

u/ghouly-cooly 18h ago

Yes from accounts if other jurors who said that he admitted he had reasonable doubt but was still holding out for a hung jury.

1

u/pompousrompus 15h ago

Having reasonable doubt is the point.. who gives a fuck about other jurors taking to media

1

u/ghouly-cooly 13h ago

Yes that is the point. He had reasonable doubt that she was guilty, which means he couldn't reasonably convict her of being guilty. And yet still held out.

2

u/muffinman885 19h ago

A lot of people in here commenting on the justice system who don't even have a basic understanding of hearsay.

2

u/ghouly-cooly 18h ago

Heresay is one thing, but it's from people who were in the room with him who followed the case alongside him in the jury. If we don't have his perspective then the next best thing is eyewitness testimony of what he said.

2

u/DionysianComrade 15h ago

acquittal was an option

1

u/ghouly-cooly 13h ago

And the rest of the jury wanted to find not guilty by reason of insanity, not just not guilty.

1

u/rudolfs_padded_cell 12h ago edited 12h ago

That's not correct, per many articles the majority vote was acquittal, and the holdout was on the side of not guilty by reason of insanity.

Lindsay Clancy juror says Patrick Clancy's testimony swayed her decision, reveals more about lone holdout - CBS News https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lindsay-clancy-juror-mistrial/

Fun fact though, looking up articles for this link, 4 major news sources all provide different descriptions of the votes, spanning the whole gamut from acquittal to the holdout claiming a guilty stance. Journalism is dead.

2

u/ghouly-cooly 7h ago

Literally read through that article, it even describes that this juror wanted her found not guilty by reason of insanity. Both not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity are acquitals as they're both types of not guilty. And even in your article it describes the lone hold out as wanting a guilty charge. This further shows that the jury wanted not guilty by reason of insanity.

1

u/rudolfs_padded_cell 2h ago

I apologize as I don't mean this as an incitement. One of the first articles I read from NYT post mistrial announcement went into detail regarding the stance of the jurors, and I specifically recall reading that the stance of the majority was not guilty due to no criminal responsibility. Maybe that also was intended to stand in for insanity, but I am not a lawyer and can't say if that was a specific difference or not.