It is the first time the juror, who refused to side with the others and acquit Clancy, has spoken publicly about his decision.

The lone holdout juror in the trial of Lindsay Clancy has said he “didn’t have any doubts” that she was criminally responsible for killing her three children.

“Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses and what the prosecution presents, I thought it was enough proof that she knew exactly what she was doing and planned it,” Michael Desronvil said in a statement to CBS News, the BBC’s US partner.

The judge declared a mistrial on 4 September after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict following nearly 40 hours of deliberating.

  • Serinus@lemmy.world
    0·
    15 days ago

    “Admitting” that in deliberation is not binding in any way.

    The only “gotcha” they can pull out is to get him to agree with the verdict. He clearly didn’t and did his job admirably.

    He did what he thought was right despite immense pressure to just go with the flow.

    • velma@sh.itjust.worksM
      0·
      15 days ago

      No, if he had any doubt at all then he should have voted with the rest of the jurors. That’s how the law works. A jury is not a place to take a personal stand on a case.

      On top of that, this juror lied about his criminal past in order to be selected for the jury. He should have been disqualified from the get go.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        0·
        15 days ago

        He had no doubt she intentionally planned and strangled her three kids and was aware of what she was doing.

        He may have doubted other things, but those didn’t matter to him as much as that simple fact.

        • velma@sh.itjust.worksM
          0·
          15 days ago

          I trust the other jurors account of him admitting he had reasonable doubt over his retelling since he lied about his criminal history in order to get on the jury. It’s even more damning to know that his criminal history includes domestic violence against his partner.

          • Serinus@lemmy.world
            0·
            15 days ago

            Good for you. I guess if you were on the jury you could have made your own choice.

            This isn’t even an allegation of bribery or coercion or corruption. It’s just you not liking his decision as a juror doing exactly what a juror is supposed to do.

      • GreyEyedGhost@piefed.caEnglish
        0·
        14 days ago

        There are different threshold of doubt that are allowed in various jurisdictions for various trials. Two terms are “beyond a reasonable boubt” and “the preponderance of evidence”. The first accepts that you may still have doubts, having not seen the act with your own eyes and the fallibility of witnesses, the other that the balance tips in one direction or other. I don’t know of any legal systems that require no doubt at all in the verdict.

        All that said, I’d say that jury nullification indicates that the jury is absolutely the right place to take a personal stand, regardless of what the law says. If you have the right to hear all the evidence to indicate that an unjust law was broken, you should still be able to say, “Not guilty.” You do in fact have that right in many places, including America. The fact lawyers try their best take sure it doesn’t happen doesn’t mean it’s illegal. Note that unless everyone agrees, this will also result in a hung jury and a mistrial.

          • GreyEyedGhost@piefed.caEnglish
            0·
            14 days ago

            Then you should use the correct terms, or the terms relevant to this case and this topic. The fact of the matter is, the same legal standards that allow the striking down of an unjust law via jury nullification are the same ones that allow the abuse or rejection of a just law, which seems highly relevant to this particular case.

            • velma@sh.itjust.worksM
              0·
              14 days ago

              To find Clancy guilty, jurors had to be unanimously convinced beyond reasonable doubt that she intentionally killed her children and that she did not do so as a result of postpartum psychosis, a rare and serious condition.

              The jury - nine women and three men - considered a range of options including not guilty by reason of insanity, manslaughter and first-degree murder.

              Several jurors have said following the mistrial being declared that the panel was ultimately divided 11-1 in favour of finding Clancy not criminally responsible.

              Another juror told local CBS station WBZ-TV that most of the jurors had been “very firm in their stance” from the start and “the stand-alone juror was not the only one that was unwilling to see things from the other side”.

              But they added that because Desronvil would not “follow” his reasonable doubt nor offer logical reasoning for his position, they felt Clancy had not received a fair trial.

              Under Massachusetts law, prosecutors had to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Clancy was criminally responsible for the jury to find her guilty. The defence did not have to prove her mental illness or lack of criminal responsibility.

              He said the holdout “would not apply the law of reasonable doubt” as instructed by the judge, adding: “That’s not right. And that’s why I was upset.”