Lindsay Clancy’s Jury Foreperson Reported What Problem?

The most consequential development in Lindsay Clancy’s deliberations may have nothing to do with another piece of evidence.

Kevin Reddington says the foreperson reported a problem with one juror and Judge William Sullivan’s reasonable-doubt instructions. The defense wanted the juror removed. Sullivan refused to choose between the apparent minority and majority positions.

That is exactly where this gets uncomfortable.

A unanimous jury only works if jurors can disagree without being punished for disagreeing. But jurors also swear to follow the law. If eleven people believe number twelve has crossed that line, who determines whether they’re right?

Tony Brueski examines the alleged holdout, the Tuey-Rodriguez “dynamite” instruction and whether a case built around competing psychiatric opinions was almost designed to expose the weaknesses of unanimous jury decision-making.

Check out Robin Dreeke’s Master Class http://masterclass.com/robindreeke 

Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292
Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1
Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Tik-Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod
X Twitter: https://x.com/tonybpod

This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

#LindsayClancy #LindsayClancyCase #LindsayClancyTrial #JuryDeadlock #HoldoutJuror #CriminalResponsibility #PostpartumPsychosis #MassachusettsTrial #CourtroomAnalysis #TonyBrueski