Okay so the Lindsay Clancy trial is done, having ended in a mistrial. Now let’s talk about the jury. Since people have a lot of misconceptions in mind about how juries work, what they can and cannot do. So let’s start with a truth that a lot of people don’t realize, or readily ignore.
Juries are allowed to ignore everything
Many seem to think that the jury must “follow the law” and must “evaluate the evidence” when… they really don’t. There is no statutory requirement for them to do so, though judges will often paint their instructions as if that’s the case. And any attempt to make such a statutory requirement is unenforceable on its face.
In all seriousness, if a jury of 12 were all convinced to do so, they could ignore everything and just flip a coin – heads for guilty, tails for not. They are allowed to ignore anything and everything. Convict because they don’t like the defendant or acquit because they do.
A jury can, if they desire, convict if the defendant is actually innocent and acquit if the defendant is obviously guilty. Indeed the latter has a name: jury nullification, arising out of the absolute double jeopardy protection from the Fifth Amendment.
And all that is perfectly allowable because…
Jurors cannot face any kind of reprisal
Also known as juror immunity. No juror can be prosecuted or sued for how they voted or deliberated. And the jury, collectively, also cannot be prosecuted or sued for their verdict.
And any attempt to enact any law eliminating that immunity would be unconstitutional. And appellate Courts are extremely protective of the jury and process.
One juror holdout is not unusual
Remember James Holmes? He’s the Aurora theater shooter who was spared from the death penalty by ONE juror. All others were ready to recommend the death penalty. But one hesitated and couldn’t be swayed by everyone else.
And as I wrote on this blog not long after that jury handed down their decision… that’s a feature, not a bug:
A person who says at the start of a trial that they are willing to impose the death penalty in a case may waver when the time actually comes to decide if that sentence should be imposed. It is actually one of the striking features of the capital punishment sentencing process and the primary reason it exists.
And with criminal trial juries, it’s much the same. Hung juries are a feature, not a bug. Since juries are a check on the government. If one person wants to vote “guilty” and honestly believes that is the right verdict to return in the face of 11 others who don’t feel the same, then so be it.
But what absolutely was NOT appropriate was Clancy’s defense attorney attempting to get the lone holdout removed because he was allegedly standing in the way of the verdict he wanted.
Speaking of the holdout…
He “ignored the law”
To whatever extent that’s true, he’s allowed to. Again any juror and even the entire jury are allowed to ignore anything and everything if they want. The law. The evidence. Any or all of it. And there really isn’t anything that anyone can do about it or change that.
He “lied under oath”
The juror was not asked if he was willing to apply the law, only if he was able to. The defense attorney’s own statements even say such.
Being willing to do so is a completely different concept. For example, I’m probably able to change the oil on your car. Whether I will do it is not the same thing. But so many people treat being able to do something as the same as being willing to do it. That if you say you can do something, it means you will do that thing.
They’re not congruent concepts.
And, again, juries are allowed to ignore the law. Jury nullification is a clear example of that. And not liking the outcome does not mean the jury or any juror did anything wrong.
