Lindsay Clancy Trial: 11 to One In Favor of ... Full Acquittal, With a Single Juror Hanging on For a Conviction?

I don't understand what's going on.

It's the defense attorney who says he wants the juror excluded for refusing to follow the judge's orders about what "reasonable doubt" means.

So... does this mean that 11 jurors are voting to acquit and one lone juror is insisting on a conviction? And the other jurors are claiming that the juror is inserting a "more likely than not" standard over the more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard?

And how could you even say that this is just a matter of feeling that the prosecution is slightly more persuasive than the defense? Were they all absent the day they presented evidence?

The defense lawyer claims this juror keeps "ignoring the law" and will not accept the judge's rules as to the threshold of evidence required to convict.

This is 11 to one for acquittal, and women are officially allowed to commit murder if they have the grumpies.

Eric Daugherty
@EricLDaugh

🚨 BREAKING: The Lindsay Clancy m*rder defense attorney just DEMANDED that ONE HOLDOUT JUROR be REMOVED from the jury, accusing that juror of not listening to "reasonable doubt" instructions

HOLD THE LINE!!

The attorney worries there will be a mistrial, meaning it would GO AGAIN to try and convict her

"There's one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you've given him or her on reasonable doubt...if we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it's a shame, it's a real shame!"

Let me know if you think I'm right.

Jonathan Turley thinks that there were multiple jurors who switched from "guilty" to "not guilty" but one holdout remains in the "guilty" camp.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 04:00 PM

| Access Comments