Can the Lindsay Clancy Jury Break Its Deadlock?
New York Times · LC · trust 46/100
In general, juries that have repeatedly report an impasse are unlikely to reach consensus. But sometimes, those asked by a judge to try harder do return a verdict.
Listen · 6:40 min Share full article Lindsay Clancy is charged with first-degree murder in the strangling deaths of her three young children. Credit... Pool photo by Greg Derr By Jenna Russell
Whether the jury can resolve its differences will determine the fate of Ms. Clancy, 36, who is charged with first-degree murder in the strangling deaths of her three young children. And if the jurors cannot achieve consensus, the resulting mistrial will open a ferocious new round of debate about Ms. Clancy’s case, the tactics used by lawyers on both sides — and the mysterious dynamics inside that jury room.
“When you have 12 people, a cross-section of the community, who have to reach a unanimous verdict based on a very high standard of proof, it’s remarkable that hung juries are relatively rare,” said Paul Butler, a law professor at Georgetown University.
The jurors in the Clancy trial include nine women and three men. They represent a range of ages; most are white. Several looked visibly weary on Wednesday afternoon as the presiding judge, William Sullivan of Plymouth County Superior Court, read them a formal set of instructions known as a “dynamite charge” — designed to prod them toward consensus — and ordered them to return on Thursday for a sixth day of deliberations.
Hung juries occur infrequently, in an estimated 5 to 6 percent of criminal cases. But juries that repeatedly report an impasse are unlikely to engineer a breakthrough, several experts said. Deadlocked juries that are read a dynamite charge do sometimes return verdicts, said Jack Lu, a retired Massachusetts Superior Court judge who heard cases for almost two decades. When they do, those verdicts tend to come quickly.
“This ratchets up the pressure significantly,” he said of Judge Sullivan’s last-ditch appeal.
The pressure that could be felt by jurors to reach unanimity has made the use of such instructions controversial. Some states, including Massachusetts, have revised the language used to make it sound less coercive.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Read the original at New York Times →
Open in TruthVane →