Has a single juror refused to apply the law? Will a higher court force the jury to continue deliberations? Or will the Lindsay Clancy murder trial have to settle for a sequel?
Presiding Judge William Sullivan and defense attorney Kevin Reddington spent the morning in angry exchanges over the lone holdout juror, whom Reddington insists is blocking an acquittal. Sullivan finally declared his intent to end the proceedings in a mistrial, but then gave Reddington an hour to appeal his ruling before dismissing the jury:
The judge says he will declare a mistrial and is calling the jury back in.
Kevin Reddington, the defense lawyer, speaking very quietly, asks for an emergency stay “before you declare a mistrial.” The judge waves his hands, asking if Reddington is asking for jurors to return on Saturday.
The judge says he will give Reddington an hour to request an emergency stay from a higher court on the mistrial declaration.
This followed a tense argument in which Reddington accused Sullivan of failing to take action over what he characterized as juror misconduct. Reddington had argued yesterday to replace the holdout juror, which would be a nearly unprecedented action without misconduct. Sullivan sharply rebuked Reddington this morning when Reddington renewed his attack:
"I would go so far as to say he lied under oath," Reddington said, calling for the juror to be removed. Sullivan rejected his request.
"I'm not going to do a further inquiry of this juror," the judge said. "It's their duty to accept the law as I've given it to them."
Reddington then objected. While asking for a second inquiry, he told the judge he wanted Sullivan to do it more forcefully this time.
"You did it yesterday, you did it soft. You didn't do it forcefully," Reddington said.
"What do you want me to do? Get a brass band?" Sullivan shot back. "I read the instruction as written by the SJC (Supreme Judicial Court). The fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that. I'm not an actor. I'm just giving the instructions."
Reddington then accused the judge of "glossing over" the issue that the juror will "not apply the law of reasonable doubt."
"I am specifically not glossing over this issue. I have thought about this issue long and hard," Sullivan replied.
The clock is ticking, but it seems unlikely that a higher court will provide relief. Sullivan has followed the judicial playbook in dealing with hung juries, and judges don't remove jurors simply for being holdouts. Contra Reddington, the jury and jurors individually exist to apply the law according to the instructions and to their own interpretation of the evidence and testimony. If Reddington wanted a bench trial, he could have requested one.
Right now, therefore, it seems likely that the trial will conclude today with no verdict. Who does that benefit? If the jury really was hung 11-1 for acquittal, then the prosecution gets another chance at the premeditated murder charge – if they want it. A CBS analyst wonders if anyone wins in that scenario:
WBZ-TV legal analyst Jennifer Roman was asked if a mistrial would be considered a "win" for Lindsay Clancy's defense.
"I think a mistrial for the defense is favorable to a guilty finding, for sure," Roman said. "I'm not sure that it's necessarily a win. I think that Lindsay Clancy and her team, along with every other person involved in this case, would like resolution and would like this to be done. Certainly, if there's a mistrial, there's a very real possibility the case would be tried again."
Roman added that the most likely scenario would be that there is another trial.
"And that, you know, just the thought of that carries a certain weight to it, and a certain emotional impact, I think, for everybody involved," Roman said.
There will be another trial if this one does not continue today. Next time, perhaps the court will sequester the jury. Stay tuned for further updates.
Update: The New York Times reporter on scene shares my skepticism about Reddington's appeal:
The extraordinary maneuver by Ms. Clancy’s lawyer to try to block or delay a mistrial plunged the proceeding into a moment of chaos and unknown territory. Such a stay from Massachusetts’s highest court is unlikely to be granted; it was unclear if there is any precedent for such a request being approved.
I'm surprised that Sullivan countenanced it at all. He's been pretty careful from what I've seen of the record in this case, especially on jury instructions, as NYT analyst Jacey Fortin points out. The objection Reddington raised on reasonable-doubt instructions is almost certainly a loser:
Under Massachusetts law, judges cannot use their own words to explain reasonable doubt, said R. Michael Cassidy, a law professor at Boston College. That is why the judge read verbatim from instructions that were created by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 2015.
“The charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after you’ve compared and considered all of the evidence,” Judge Sullivan said, “you have in your minds an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, that the charge is true.”
Reddington is essentially asking the SJC to intervene on the basis of Sullivan doing exactly what the SJC requires him to do. That seems rather unlikely.
Editor’s Note: The American people overwhelmingly support President Trump’s law and order agenda.
Help us fight back against the Democrats and Soros-backed DAs that refuse to enforce our laws to hold criminals accountable. Join HotAir VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member