In Complex Cases Like Lindsay Clancy’s, a Unanimous Verdict Can Be Hard to Reach
New York Times · LC · trust 40/100
Hung juries are not common, but the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy was emotionally wrenching and uniquely complicated.
Listen · 3:29 min Share full article Judge William Sullivan addressing the jury during deliberations on Friday in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial in Plymouth, Mass. Credit... Pool photo by Greg Derr By Jacey Fortin
The courthouse in Plymouth, Mass., was thronged with observers. Ms. Clancy’s lawyer butted heads with the judge and made a doomed appeal to prevent the declaration of a mistrial. Audience members gasped.
But the most pivotal decision took place behind closed doors. After spending nearly 40 hours in deliberation — and half of those in deadlock — jurors said they could not come to a unanimous verdict on whether Ms. Clancy should be held criminally responsible for strangling her three children in 2023. A single juror was said to be at odds with everyone else in the room.
It was a remarkable outcome, said Valerie Hans, a Cornell law professor who studies jury behavior. “Hung juries are not frequent,” she added. “Maybe one out of every 20 cases in criminal courts results in a hung jury.”
Jury verdicts in serious criminal cases across the United States must be unanimous, a rule that was affirmed in a 2020 Supreme Court decision interpreting the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution.
“It’s entirely an artifact of history and tradition,” said Christopher Slobogin, a law professor at Vanderbilt University. He added that the standards for criminal cases were high because a guilty verdict could result in a deprivation of liberty.
Dr. Hans says that failures of consensus are most likely in cases where the evidence is close — that is, not clearly favoring either side — and complex.
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 →