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.

    • GreyEyedGhost@piefed.caEnglish
      0·
      11 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·
        11 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.”

            • GreyEyedGhost@piefed.caEnglish
              0·
              11 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.

              This you?

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

                Yes, I think that since he had stated reasonable doubt, he should have honored that and voted with the rest of the jurors.

                Acknowledging he had the right to vote the way he did does not mean his decision is immune from criticism.

                • GreyEyedGhost@piefed.caEnglish
                  0·
                  11 days ago

                  It’s great that you have that opinion, and that is absolutely your right, however, that is not how the jury system works in America or many other countries, for what I and the designers of the system believe are very good reasons. One reason would be for not convicting people for breaking unjust laws, such as the Fugitive Slave Act. You’re throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

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

                    I’m having a conversation on a forum about the case. I’m not making any legal decisions that affect this case arguing with people online who want to strip women of their rights because Lyndsey Clancy killed her kids.

                    I’m not the only one who believes this juror had ulterior motives for the way he voted and that he ignored the law telling him that if he had reasonable doubt he shouldn’t vote guilty.