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.
what a fucking tragedy.
kinda wild to me they jurors are talking publicly about their decisions. especially for a high profile case. I get that it’s allowed but still seems like something that shouldn’t be encouraged
Yeah agreed
Yeah I mean killing someone, much less multiple people, isn’t like stubbing your toe. It’s kind of a process.
As someone who has served on a jury myself, I have a difficult time criticizing the individual decisions of jurors for cases that I’m not involved in.
Obviously, it’s not a vacuum, and being the only holdout isn’t a good look… But unless you’re sitting there in court every single day, taking notes and deliberating, then your opinion on the choices of individual jurors is completely irrelevant imo.
Criminal court cases are extremely complex, and reading a few news articles about it is not the same as being there. Suggesting that’s enough is actually kind of insulting to our justice system.
Even when I’m pretty sure I would disagree had I been in that jury… It’s just impossible to know.
“I had reasonable doubt, but I don’t like how it feels to challenge my own biases and I misunderstood or lied during jury selection, so no, I don’t have reasonable doubt.”
That’s the summary of this man.
I don’t care how any juror comes to their conclusion. Religious views, merit of the facts, an apparition came to them in a dream, it doesn’t matter (except for the case of tampering). Whatever their verdict, that’s it. The fact that this guy is being scrutinized for his verdict is alarming. They go through a selection and vetting process to get on that jury. Once they are on that jury, they can come to any conclusion for any reason. They don’t need to explain their verdict. It’s just guilty or not guilty. The court can implore them to follow the law, but that doesn’t mean they must. Even if they perjured to get on that jury, the perjury is a separate thing in of itself and sure, charge them, but they cannot be compelled to come to any particular verdict. If they could, then trial by jury would be nothing more than window dressing for authoritarianism.
So this would work for you?
“She floats, so she’s a witch, and all witches are guilty so she’s guilty”
even if they perjured to get on that jury
A criminal act to get on the jury should be disqualification from serving in said jury.
I don’t care what leads a juror to their conclusion either, I care that the juror is actually supposed to be a juror.
They should have stricken him during the vetting process.
After that, tough titties, can’t be upset if you actually want a fair system that can’t be influenced by outside forces.
If the juror didn’t cooperate for other reasons, for instance, if the law was unjust or being applied unfairly, though still lawfully, you’d probably want a juror who isn’t trying to be a juror.
As far as the criminal act to get on the jury, charge him. But if he wasn’t vetted out, it’s nobody’s fault except the lawyers’.
I suspect you’re arguing because you side with the juror, not because the logic is sound, and I have a problem with that, but let’s stick with the facts.
But if he wasn’t vetted out, it’s nobody’s fault except the lawyers’.
He perjured himself, as in, he lied, on purpose or otherwise. Lawyers aren’t mind readers or psychics, you can’t place complete blame on them because someone else commited a crime to get on the jury and they didn’t catch it.
The system did exactly what it’s designed to do, it mistrialed because a juror didn’t follow the rules
The problem I have, and most people should have, is that because of one juror who didn’t follow the rules we are extending the time, suffering, cost, and damages that shouldn’t have happened.
They should have stricken him during the vetting process.
Yes! They should have, and because the juror SNUCK into the jury unfairly, it wasn’t a fair trial.
He IS the problem. He started it. He made ALL of this worse. Not the lawyers, who could have done better, not the system, designed in the way that it is, not even the woman who murdered her children.
This is already an incredibly terrible thing, but people like the juror who lie to get what they want make it worse for everyone else.
Defending the person who commited a crime to make things worse because he wasn’t caught early enough is just asinine.
But if he wasn’t vetted out, it’s nobody’s fault except the lawyers’.
This particular juror lied about his criminal history during jury selection. He shares culpability here.
I’m seeing the rightoids talk about this. It doesn’t seem like news, anyone care to explain why this is on my feed?
literally anything exists
Conservatives: “is this a culture war?”
It is news. You’re in a news community. You would know what the news was if you read it.
They’re using Lindsey Clancy to justify taking away women’s rights.
Feminism has spent the last 150+ years trying to convince society that women can be level-headed, responsible adults instead of the emotional and hysterical forever-children that they were painted as.
This caricature of uncontrolled emotionality and hysteria was the entire reasoning as to why they could have no agency and therefore could accept no responsibility. That they could not be trusted to act with logic, reason, and accountability, and that their female nature nerfed their cognitive abilities so much that they would always require male chaperones and “owners”, just like children.
With Lindsey Clancy, Women just collectively argued for the latter all over again.
I’m a leftist that’s two good shakes away from being a communist, but holy goddamn hell this argument that women are using - that she is not responsible and cannot be held accountable regardless of how clearly and intentionally she meticulously planned the killings - is rolling the argument for women’s rights all the way back, weaponizing it in the most effective possible way, and then handing it wrapped up in a gift bow directly to the political right.
She planned it. She was 100% responsible. The sooner women stop using the “hormones” excuse, the sooner we stop arming the political right.
Finally, a sane take. Thank you
Asserting that all women must be punished as a group for the actions of some is extremely sexist.
You are no leftist with views like these.
Asserting that all women must be punished as a group for the actions of some is extremely sexist.
You are no leftist with views like these.
You… haven’t even understood what I wrote, have you?
I never said anything of the sort. I simply articulated what the political right will use as ammunition, and how women everywhere have handed the political right the very ammunition they intend to use.
Because the political right will point to all the female supporters of Lindsay Clancy and say, “See? They are demanding that she not be held accountable for her crimes. And if women cannot be held accountable - if they can use this “hormones” card whenever they want - they cannot be trusted with responsibility.”
And it is by that very method that the right will move mountains to roll back 150 years of genuine progress.
Be careful what you wish for. Responsibility comes with a heaping foundation of accountability, and if fathers with mental disorders can be nailed to the wall for infanticide, so should mothers. That is, after all, the basis of equality. And if we don’t implement true equality, why even call it that?
Telling women to be silent in case the right weaponizes what a minority of people are doing is in effect punishing all women for the actions of a few. You are working for conservatives by doing their work for them in advance. You are casting all women as irrational on the basis that the right will cast all women as irrational.
Telling women to be silent in case the right weaponizes what a minority of people are doing is in effect punishing all women for the actions of a few. You are working for conservatives by doing their work for them in advance. You are casting all women as irrational on the basis that the right will cast all women as irrational.
And if we aren’t clear on what the right will do - if we ignore it wholesale - their tactics will be all the more effective.
And from my discussions with other women (quite a few hundred over the last several months), female supporters of Lindsay Clancy are very much in the majority, even up here in Canada. It isn’t some fringe group, it is an above-50% proportion of adult women who think that she is either totally innocent, or at the very least not criminally liable for a well-planned, well-orchestrated, and clearly forethought series of murders. And that is disturbing AF, especially considering the wildly imbalanced gender sentencing gap.
To be absolutely clear: a fair majority of women are openly rejecting true equality in sentencing for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with equality and everything to do with establishing and maintaining special gender-unique privileges.
Believing that post partum psychosis can lead to terrible tragedies is not an extremist fringe belief. Believing that better treatment and healthcare for pregnant and post partum women in order to prevent these kinds of tragedies is not an extremist fringe belief. I will not stand by and let people like you frame those beliefs as extremist or fringe or not worthy of being taken seriously.
Asserting that all women must be punished as a group for the actions of some is extremely sexist.
I’m not the one making that argument, dumbass. I’m just laying out what others will leverage.
You are no leftist with views like these.
Being able to understand and articulate how your opponent will think and act is the most essential tool to counter said actions. You out your own intellectual bankruptcy by insisting on groupthink.
I’m not the one making that argument, dumbass.
Definitely not being cool.
This is ultimately a very sad story and proof that the system failed this family over and over.
For those without time to wade through the article:
the panel was ultimately divided 11-1 in favour of finding Clancy not criminally responsible.
On September 25, 2021, Desronvil’s 13 year old nephew called the Brockton Police and said “please come….my auntie,” before hanging up. When police arrived they found Desronvil and his wife on the front steps of the porch, with Desronvil holding his 6 month old baby. Desronvil tried to tell police that they didn’t need any help in an attempt to get them to leave, but the 13 year old nephew told police that he witnessed Desronvil hit his wife after the woman attempted to take her crying daughter from him in order to comfort her, at which point he assaulted her by grabbing his wife by the neck and throwing her into a bedroom dresser. Desronvil’s mother yelled “YOU’RE EVIL” twice at her son before he was taken away by police.
The charges were dropped several months later, but the ex-wife spoke with NBC10 Boston and said that the charges were only dropped because she was worried about losing custody of her daughter if she testified.
What an evil, incompetent person. He should not be allowed to cast votes or make decisions for anyone, including himself.
Further shame on the judge for not issuing clarifying instructions when the jury reported this sociopathic fucker.
Desronvil said he believed the evidence presented in court showed she had planned the killings.
“I didn’t have any doubts,” he said in a statement to CBS on Thursday.
“As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence presented.”
He didn’t have any doubts, but he had doubts.
Let’s see what the other jurors said…
The jury foreperson, a retired fifth-grade teacher, described not being able to reach a verdict as “awful” and an “emotional rollercoaster”.
She told NBC that Desronvil had “admitted he had reasonable doubt”, but as she started filling out the verdict sheets, he apparently said: “But I’m still not going to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.”
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.
Not to be a dick, but:
I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence presented.
He’s literally saying the opposite of “I have doubts” still here, he’s saying “I have no doubts but these other people are interupting me like I do have doubts.”
Now, that still seems like a dumb fucking thing to say, but he’s not contradicting his doubtlessness, he’s saying he’s being doubted, that “as if” is very important for context.
I think that if a juror is pushing different possible theories, they have reasonable doubt.
That and the following statement from another juror:
She told NBC that Desronvil had “admitted he had reasonable doubt”
“I’m not sure if she bashed his head in with a hammer, or a lead pipe, or a candlestick, but I am sure she bashed his head in.”
This is a person describing three different possible theories, without admitting to reasonable doubt of criminal culpability.
OH I see what you mean.
Yeah but in this context “reasonable doubt” is a very specific thing and “doubt” is just the concept, so, “he does not doubt that he has a reasonable doubt regarding her innocence” actually, as dumb as it sounds, could possibly be the valid interpretation of his statements.
But regardless, that second statement (from the post I replied to ykwim lol) doesn’t mean “I had doubts,” it means the literal opposite.
Also he could just be lying anyway, but those two OG statements quoted aren’t (at least necessarily) contradictory.
He’s allowed to hold his position for any reason at all, including he doesn’t agree with a defense of insanity--if that’s what it was. Likely during jury selection they were asked if they held that bias, and possibly he didn’t know, or possibly he lied. But, that’s all part of our system. It’s imperfect as every such system is.
He claims he tried to explain his reasoning but the rest wouldn’t listen. That may be the failure point. If they had listened, maybe they could have persuaded him. Or, maybe they did listen at first and rejected his arguments, then wouldn’t listen anymore.
We’ll never know what happened in the deliberation room, but the system worked as it should. Having sat on two juries in the past, I have some faith in juries to come to a good decision. In this case, the jury failed in a way that can be accommodated. That is, it was a mistrial, so there’ll be another trial.
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.
“As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence presented.”
Not if he had reasonable doubt.
The only person who can determine if he had any doubt is him. The only person who can determine if his doubt is reasonable is also him. The decision of a juror is not subject to anyone else’s opinion.
“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.
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.
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.
We’re not talking about various trials here, we’re talking about one trial.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bless him.
You should probably read the article. Particularly where he said there was reasonable doubt but refused to acknowledge it on paper.
I might not be certain she wasn’t crazy, and still don’t care because she killed 3 children.
Seems like you just disagree with the concept of an insanity plea.
The entire case so far had been about whether or not she was in control of herself. No one is disputing whether she killed the kids.
Ok.
Nobody ever reads the articles smh
There’s so much good info in there!
I keep seeing that word and I just don’t know what you’re talking about? People post a title with one sentence, that’s what we all react to! Article sounds like nerd stuff!
To think someone would read an article before commenting on it. That’s crazy talk around here.
