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

2.5k

u/MGLLN 21h ago edited 20h ago

The lone Black juror on the Lindsay Clancy trial who refused to acquit her used an exercise band and an empty water bottle to visually reenact the way Clancy strangled her three children. The incident was said to have disturbed the other 11 jurors.

He was also said to have ignored the other jurors and scrolled on his phone while they attempted to speak with him or dissuade him from his decision. A juror who voted to acquit, told ABC that “there wasn’t a single piece of evidence or witness testimony that he used to prove why he was thinking the way he was.”

606

u/GooginTheBirdsFan 20h ago

Bro what???? Like at first I was like “well shit it had to be demonstrated if they weren’t getting how aggressive it was”

“Wasn’t a single piece of evidence or witness testimony that was used to prove why he was thinking the way he was”

Ohhh

109

u/AnsibleAnswers 20h ago

The issue is how the laws are written in Massachusetts. The facts of the case were genuinely irrelevant to the law because both the prosecution and defense agreed on the facts. In MA, the prosecution has to prove that the defendant is of sound mind to be tried if they use an insanity defense. In most other states, the defense has to prove insanity to use it as a defense. I think we see here why it's a bad idea to presume insanity until proven reasonable.

Like it or not, it's pretty clear why all but one juror chose to acquit. It was the legally correct decision given the law. The juror seems to have been going over facts that were entirely irrelevant to the actual legal case being presented.

17

u/tuscaloser 19h ago

Eh, we congratulate jurors on jury nullification (also going against the legally “correct” decision) all the time. It’s risky for the prosecution and defense to let a jury decide.

21

u/lwelle 16h ago

Jury nullification is the opposite. You’re allowed to vote ‘not guilty’ for no reason, but you’re not allowed to vote ‘guilty’ without good reason.

6

u/tuscaloser 16h ago

The person above me was talking about "legally correct" decisions, not "allowed" decisions.

3

u/SelbetG 13h ago

you’re not allowed to vote ‘guilty’ without good reason.

I mean you are, there isn't anything stopping the jury from doing so, it just won't work because it can just get overturned.