By David Oscar Markus
Eleven jurors voted to acquit Lindsay Clancy, while one juror held out against acquittal. After almost two months of trial, more than 80 witnesses, and seven days of deliberations, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on Friday. Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said he will decide later whether to try her again.
He should not. And the law should not let him.
Most people wrongly assume the Constitution already takes care of this. The Double Jeopardy Clause says no person shall "be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" for the same offense. That seems pretty straightforward – the government should get one shot at a conviction. But the Supreme Court has said otherwise.
It started back in 1824 with United States v. Perez. Josef Perez was tried for piracy, a capital offense. The jury hung. The Supreme Court explained that the defendant could be tried again where there was “manifest necessity” for the mistrial. Then in 1984, the Court decided Richardson v. United States, in which a jury acquitted the defendant on one narcotics count and hung on the two others. He argued that because the government had already had its chance at a trial to convict him, it should not be able to have a second bite at the apple. Justice Rehnquist disagreed. The failure of a jury to reach a verdict, he wrote, "is not an event which terminates jeopardy." Justice Brennan was right in his dissent where he said that the defendant was being subjected to a second trial, which the Constitution did not permit.
The Court took up a similar issue about 15 years ago in Blueford v. Arkansas. Before deliberations ended, the foreperson told the judge the jury was unanimous against guilt on capital murder and on first-degree murder, deadlocked on manslaughter, and had not yet voted on negligent homicide. The jury kept deliberating, got nowhere, and the judge declared a mistrial. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the foreperson's report "was not a final resolution of anything." So Arkansas could retry Blueford on everything, including the two charges all twelve jurors had rejected out loud in open court. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan.
The Supreme Court has cleared a path for Clancy to be tried again. But prosecutors should not do so and the Supreme Court should take another look at this issue.
The prosecution had a chance to put on its best case. Twelve people listened to all of it. Eleven of them had reasonable doubt. Judge Sullivan told the jurors on Thursday that a strong probability of guilt is not enough. By any honest measure, the prosecution failed to carry its burden. If the government cannot prove its case at a trial, that should be the end of the matter.
Think about what a retrial means for Clancy. She goes back to the state hospital and waits. It could be a long time. Another seven weeks of testimony about the deaths of her children. Another set of experts. Another bill. Another enormous imposition on jurors, court staff, the judge.
Plus, it’s not fair. The prosecution gets a preview of the defense theory, its cross-examinations, its opening and summation. One of the only advantages the defense has in a criminal trial is the element of surprise. All of that is gone in a retrial, which is why prosecutors typically do not lose twice in a row.
Of course, Massachusetts did just that recently. Karen Read's first jury hung in July 2024. The Norfolk County District Attorney tried her again. In June 2025, the second jury acquitted her of second-degree murder and leaving the scene, and convicted her only of operating under the influence. She got a year of probation. It took two trials and years of her life to get there, in addition to the huge expense to taxpayers.
The Supreme Court explained in Green v. United States, that the State, "with all its resources and power," should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict a defendant where he was acquitted because it subjects a defendant to "embarrassment, expense and ordeal" and compelled “him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity.” So too with a retrial after a hung jury. Those costs do not disappear because the first jury deadlocked.
The Supreme Court should revisit this issue. "Twice put in jeopardy" means what it says. Jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn. If the government cannot persuade that jury, the case should be over.
If the Court will not act, Congress or the States should. Nothing in the Constitution stops Massachusetts from barring retrials after a hung jury.
Cruz can make all of this moot. He can announce that he will
not retry Lindsay Clancy. Eleven jurors already told him what they think of his
case. The prosecution had the burden to prove Clancy guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt and it failed to do so. That should be it.
67 comments:
How would that work though?
Is there a minimum number of jurors needed for the not guilty verdict vs unanimous decision for guilt?
There is a local twist to this holding and it has a local flavor. Old timers may remember the Courtbroom cases from the early '90's where a number of judges and lawyers were convicted of bribery and racketeering offenses. The late Al Sepe was acquitted of numerous underlying predicate acts in the substantive RICO counts but the jury hung on his RICO conspiracy charge. The trial court ruled that the government could not use the acquitted conduct in the re-trial of the RICO conspiracy charge due to double jeopardy concerns. But the 11th Circuit reversed and held that an acquittal on substantive predicate acts does not preclude the government from using that acquitted conduct to support a subsequent indictment for a RICO conspiracy charge when the jury was hung on the conspiracy charge in an earlier trial. BTW, I do not believe the jury was 11-1 for an acquittal. It was 11-1 for not guilty by reason of insanity.
And what about the issue of the note stating the sole holdout did not want to apply the law? Do you think that should've have been grounds to dismiss that juror?
"Think about what a retrial means for Clancy. She goes back to the state hospital and waits. It could be a long time." Oh no, the woman who strangled her kids one by one will have t be in a mental hospital hosptial and not be free in society. WAAAAAH.
I'd probably have sided with you if her asshole defense attorney hadn't singled out the holdout juror in public comments. Retry and convict her.
I don't know enough about the original meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause to opine on whether you're right or wrong about what it forbids or should forbid. But you make a compelling case for not retrying her.
The tolerant left has become so tolerant that now they tolerate and cheer on mothers murdering their children.
That's one (very inaccurate and unnecessarily inflammatory, to the point it's undermines the whole premise) way to put it.
The liberal women out here protesting in the streets in support of Clancey, the liberal men out here advocating to change the laws to support Clancey.
It really was a slippery slope from abortion should be legal but used sparingly to it’s my body I should be able to have an abortion up to nine months, to women should face no consequences for murdering their children.
I guess women shouldn’t kill their kids is a right wing talking point now.
"One of the only advantages the defense has in a criminal trial is the element of surprise." Hardly true and hardly persuasive. The defense has several statutory and constitutional advantages, such as, the burden of proof being on the state, pretrial discovery (including constitutional obligations), and appeal of conviction (state cannot appeal an acquittal, can they?). The element of surprise is not one of the only advantages, nor is it a recognized as a separate right.
How would this double jeopardy rule work, exactly? Your argument is compelling if, as reported, the jury was 11-1 for NG for reason of insanity with one rogue holdout. But what if it was the reverse - 11 to 1 to convict? Would DJ deny justice for the victims - and society - because one wild-hair juror refused to accept what the evidence proved? Wouldn't justice demand that there be some ability to review such outcomes before barring any retrial?
Very good point!!
Nice article David!
Agree, people really need to let this go and move on. I mean she only killed her kids one by one as the ones who remained living wathced in horror. She's definitely the real vicitm here.
I mean it's not like she misgendered someone.
“Think about what a retrial means for Clancy. She goes back to the state hospital and waits. It could be a long time. Another seven weeks of testimony about the deaths of her children.”
Wow - I’m sold. How could any system of ordered liberty subject a mass murderer to hearing about the children she murdered in cold blood for a second time?
Why stop there? The Menendez brothers bought it full circle. And euthanasia is becoming more acceptable.
How about making the government pay for the retrial at the same cost as the original (private lawyers 1st time, government pays for them the 2nd round)? Let the expense weigh into consideration.
Giving any lone juror the ability to permanently foreclose a verdict (in either direction) is equally as troublesome and would invite judges to start inquiring into jury deliberations
We have the most fair system on Earth. The system wasn’t designed for criminals to get away with crime by setting an extraordinarily high bar. It also wasn’t designed to let a lone wolf prevent an acquittal / NGRI
After the breakup, there was a deep sense of loss and a strong desire to reconnect. It was important to explore all possible ways to fill the void that had been created. Dr. Agbazara brought my lover back within just 72 hours of me contacting him after someone recommended him online. I would only advise anyone who is having problems in their relationship or marriage to contact Dr. AGBAZARA TEMPLE through this email address ( agbazara@gmail. com ) or via Whatsapp ( +234 814 627 4490 ) and get the help they need.
@12:31PM Dude, seriously? Abortion rights are about not being forced to carry and give birth (and, as we now have to worry about, not being forced to carry and deliver a fetus that has already died in utero, not having to wait until being in a state of sepsis before getting medical intervention, not having to die and leave other kids behind because the state does not treat pregnant women as among those “all lives [that] matter.” The Clancy case is about jurors who, unlike you, actually heard all the evidence and decided not to convict. The idea of not retrying Clancy comes from those crazy Libtards we refer to as the founding fathers. Maybe try stepping out of your angry, dark right wing echo chamber once in a while. The sunlight is delicious as is information.
9:46 has this spot on. The false equivalencies that emanate from that angry, dark right-wing echo chamber are so transparent to all except that space's gullible inhabitants.
Only thing to add in the vein of "this 'slope' doesn't lead back up to the pro-choice movement" is that it actually leads to the long overdue pro-mental health movement, in this case for post-partem moms.
But, we know, you think that's all silly left-wing nonsense 'pseudo science' anyway. Because real patriot alphas don't need mental health support. 🙄
What if we knew now that all three were going to come out as trans / non-binary? Ok then?
For f***'s sake... such a gross comment.
Wow - in one snark-filled comment you got in both your "eye-for-an-eye, mental health disorders are made-up" AND a transphobic pot-shot?! Well done!!
You may have a future in the GOP, so long as you're not a member of the feeble-brained sex!
Your theory would inject chaos into the criminal justice system. Imagine for a moment if it was the opposite jury pool and they all voted to convict except one hold out. Someone should walk free even though there was enough evidence to convince almost everyone on the jury of a conviction. Juries can be weird and sometimes ignore evidence and come up with their own verdict. Its not a perfect system but what you are suggesting would be a horror show.
Or, could be easily remedied by making it a one-way street. Like so many other doctrines that favor the accused (lenity, etc.)
The rule of lenity is a rule of LAST RESORT in the appellate law. Everyone always conveniently forgets that
Not sure how any of that renders it not an example of a doctrine that only benefits the accused? The sole reason it was mentioned. Or why ALL CAPS screaming was the choice.
The children are not important. They were little and life in America is the pits so their merciful killings hardly qualify as crimes. The important part is that the mother not be forced to suffer any more inconvenience such as another trial. She, as with almost all killers and criminals in general, is the real victim of …………..
The amount of bull coming from leftists here is just bizarre. Go on about the other jurors, isn’t hard to notice that the ones who’ve been interviewed go on about compassion and understanding for this murderer.
Only thing she deserves is a rope.
What if the jury split was 11-1 for conviction? Or if we did not know the jury split? The article is more an indictment of our jury pool than it is of our judicial system.
Facts don't matter to those who fail to inform themselves of the science.
There is no one size fits all. One woman may experience mild hormonal imbalance following child birth while others may experience off the charts hormonal imbalance. No one can determine the amount of hormonal imbalance that Lindsay suffered from. Plus, the types of delusions & hallucinations that women suffering from postpartum psychosis experience are never the same.
A woman suffering from postpartum psychosis can still perform executive functions and make detailed plans. A mother experiencing this condition may appear coherent, carry on conversations, or manage tasks like running household tests or organizing activities. Yet, a woman in psychosis might create a plan based on acute delusions & hallucinations & is unable to realize that what she’s doing is wrong.
www.youtube.com/shorts/3zTTTLXOEUU
That would make a lot more sense for a retrial than 11-1 for non-conviction does.
If Lindsay is being tried twice for the same crime, she is indeed being put in jeopardy twice.
Or should it have disqualified the person that put that information in the note?
Ok, but what judgment would you enter? Outright dismissal with prejudice? That doesn't seem to make any sense either, with 11 jurors apparently wanting to enter an acquittal based on lack of criminal responsibility -- a verdict that has rather significant consequences for both state and defendant.
Coming from an accomplished criminal defense attorney, this analysis is shockingly superficial, verging on outright stupidity.
Should the jurors who showed up dressed in pink in solidarity with Clancy been dismissed?
The prosecution should try her one more time for the horrid murders of her three children and will try her again barring a plea bargain which the defense has hinted it’s open to.
Keeping a possible retrial on the table has obviously pressured the defense to consider a deal.
The prosecution will learn from its mistakes in the first trial - by all accounts they put on a jumbled case until their closing argument - and probably did a poor job in jury selection too.
There needs to be justice for her three murdered infants.
If the prosecution can’t get a conviction the second time, then that should be the end of it.
That is the line that removed any credibility to this article for me. She's not being subjected to "testimony about the deaths of her kids", she's having to face testimony to how SHE brutally MURDERED her kids. There's no sympathy to be given here.
Baby murderering Democrats.
I could see an argument that re-holding the trial should only be permitted in the event that the Jury was killed by a lightning strike, or if it could be proven that one or more Jurors inside the jury room had taken a bribe or voted while in fear of their life.
I could also see an argument that in modern times, if the trial was held again, what we should actually do is just show 12 new jurors a recorded video of the original trial.
There's only two reasons to write this article. The first is that you actually disagree with your own idea, so you write the idea you dislike and tie it to this widely detested case. That reason doesn't seem likely. The second reason is that you actually don't care about the damage you'd do to your idea, but that your true motive is to try to curry favor with the nutjobs out there by writing an "out" for the defendant. I suspect the latter.
"Think about what a retrial means for Clancy. She goes back to the state hospital and waits. It could be a long time. Another seven weeks of testimony about the deaths of her children. Another set of experts. Another bill."
So criminal defendants are entitled to a trial that is economically, emotionally, and psychologically unburdensome to them?
Not compelling at all! The law requires unanimity from the jury for a conviction or acquittal. That didn't happen--period. The defense has a HUGE advantage in a retrial because it's now publicly acknowledged that anyone who votes for conviction will be outed by the defense and the media.
Maybe read an article to understand https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/12/us/andrea-yates-george-parnham-postpartum-psychosis
@9:46pm your comment is dumb, with a b. Maligning a political party with such outrageous allegations is totally … well, on brand for the Rs these days. Look forward to when y’all come back from your own trump-induced psychosis.
@3:39am - Really good point there at the end. And I'm personally wondering if that is a bug or a feature of the Clause?? My gut says the latter, which is actually fascinating, in like a ... meta sense?
@ 9:53 - that "compassion and understanding" equate to "bull" for you is the real story here.
A member of an indisputably social species, hard-wired from a survival standpoint with an inherent need to both show and receive compassion, now expressing the literal antithesis of social behavior and being so sure about it that he (98.7%) does so proudly and loudly in the comment section.
Deserves clinical study. I hope a grad student somewhere is already on it, and that you sign up!
I admittedly don't know the science. And I will watch your video. But I am going into it thinking "hormonal imbalance" isn't the whole story, which was my takeaway from this comment given how many times that phrase is repeated.
Reducing it to that (and calling it a "hormonal imbalance," which, at least to my ear, connotes a certain level of baked-in misogyny) seems incomplete and very unhelpful.
Why stop at a second trial though? Why not "third time's a charm." There's no limiting principle here.
Worse, you're starting from a premise of "justice for three murdered infants." Do you not see the bias that injects? They weren't "murdered" if mom lacked mental capacity. More dispositive, they weren't "murdered" at all because ALL 12 JURORS agreed they had reasonable doubt but one man refused to do what the law required in that circumstance (granted, this is hearsay unless the hold-out admits that).
If the kids weren't "murdered" and/or there's no one to hold criminally responsible for their deaths (the correct word), then what's the "justice" you claim is needed look like?
Also, the debate centers on a "second" trial. No one is saying anything here that would warrant your strawman second sentence. Prosecution "lost" round 1. Round 2, it's pretty reasonable that economics, emotions, psychology, come into play. Not to mention: the constitution, "justice," fairness, politics, public policy, and more broadly, who we are (or want to be) as a society. You forgot those.
"Maybe read an article to understand"
I have. Way too many articles on this subject already. What exactly does the Andrea Yates article prove? That everybody is supposed to buy the postpartum psychosis defense and pity every defendant who claims it because Yates' former defense attorney feels personal devotion to her? Yates was found guilty at her first trial, which was only reversed because Park Dietz said "Law & Order" instead of "LA Law." Despite his error in title, his point about there being a legal drama in which a mother faked postpartum psychosis to escape a murder charge was true.
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/harris-prosecutor-targeted-in-killer-s-retrial-bid-1862678.php
And anyway, when Yates went to trial a second time, she made out better than the first time.
"Also, the debate centers on a "second" trial. No one is saying anything here that would warrant your strawman second sentence."
And the state of the law says there is no categorical or magic bar against a "second" trial or even more. Our betters on the Supreme Court have conjured up a succession of extenuations and technicalities which indeed allow defendants to be put in "jeopardy" twice or more times, such as "reversible error," "mistrial," "manifest necessity," "jury tampering," "dual sovereigns," and so much more.
Invoking how distressing and onerous a second trial may be for a defendant is not a sound dispassionate legal constitutional arguments. It is just a ploy for sympathy and pity. It's not like a "second" trial crosses some qualitative brightline threshold of suffering. Some defendants make it through three or more trials on the same charge. Lots of defendants don't even make it to their first trial. If we are not supposed to inflict economic and emotional trauma upon a defendant, then the only safe path is not to prosecute them at all, even if they are guilty as sin and dead to rights.
"Not to mention: the constitution, "justice," fairness, politics, public policy, and more broadly, who we are (or want to be) as a society. You forgot those."
And the arbiters of the Constitution continue to decree that multiple trials for the same crime are legit and permitted due to the many excuses they have fashioned. Go rail against them for this legal atrocity.
And who is "we"? Bold of you to presume that everybody or most want society to be what you want it to be. This is not an enlightened evolving society and has not been for some time. There is a considerable evidence that this is a regressive devolving society that seeks and deserves more brutality.
"Worse, you're starting from a premise of "justice for three murdered infants." Do you not see the bias that injects? They weren't "murdered" if mom lacked mental capacity."
You are assuming people care about those niceties of "mental capacity" or "criminal responsibility." Somebody did something that lots of people find bad and upsetting, and they want to hurt and/or kill the person in retaliation. Compelling psychological or psychiatric evidence will not change that impression.
And it's not like we only inflict violence and retaliation upon rational cognizant morally culpable agents. Animals who attack or kill humans are usually killed afterwards, even though they are not cognizant rational agents. For so many people, Lindsay Clancy and women like here are diseased animals that they want to put down.
12:34PM to 9:22PM For Heaven’s sake, there was NO episode of LA Law OR Law and Order on a mom drowning her kids. Not everything you hear is true. Please (fact) check yourself before you wreck yourself.
@9:22 - 12:10 here. You seem fixated on whether a legal or constitutional reason exists that would prohibit a second trial. So much so that your eye-roll-inducing 'response' is just another strawman fallacy.
I brought up public policy, politics, etc. as examples of (non-"legal") factors that should come into play, especially (if not only) in the context of a re-trial. Your response doesn't respond to that at all. Yes, we get it, re-trial isn't constitutionally proscribed here. But I don't need to "rail again" any founding fathers because what I'm suggesting doesn't displace or disturb anything they did. I also don't "rail against" anyone, especially long-dead anyones, and I wasn't railing against you either.
Also not attempting to answer or define who "we" are as a society. Just noting that the decision of whether to re-try has the potential to shed light on that question--again, divorced from whether it's constitutional permissible. So while I don't mind being called "bold," your criticism again misses the mark. However, "bold of you to presume that everybody or most want society to be what you want it to be" did give me a chuckle--especially given how nonresponsive and, ironically, "presumptive" it was.
I'm not assuming anything. And I agree with you that lots of people find dead babies upsetting. And that a subset of those people lose their minds when they're that flavor of "upset," losing sight of nebulous concepts like "psychosis" and demanding eye-for-an-eye "justice."
I was just pointing out--actually, asking the OP--what they meant by "justice," because, to me, the predicate question begged their response. And I wondered if they had considered that.
I assume that's not you--although your dehumanizing comparison to wild animals being put down could really go either way without a better indication that you included that to make a rhetorical point you actually don't agree with and would never really frame that way....
"For Heaven’s sake, there was NO episode of LA Law OR Law and Order on a mom drowning her kids."
I didn't say it was an episode about a mom drowning her kids. I said it was about a mother who had killed her baby and claimed postpartum psychosis as a defense. And then even her own attorneys become suspicious about her.
It's "L.A. Law," Season 1, Episode 23, "Pigmalion."
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0624091/?_ssoLoop=1
Jimmy Smits plays the defense attorney.
“I brought up public policy, politics, etc. as examples of (non-"legal") factors that should come into play, especially (if not only) in the context of a re-trial.”
You said “the debate centers on a "second" trial.” The only reason a “second” trial is somehow relevant or distinctive is because of the “double jeopardy” dispute the post alleges about the Constitution. Despite you now trying to claim you never meant to implicate any “legal” matters, you said “Not to mention: the constitution, "justice," fairness, politics, public policy.” Since you allege the “constitution” as one of the grounds to consider regarding a “second” trial, I thought it relevant to note that the Constitution currently in force has no problem at all with “second” trials or more, due to the host of excuses and technicalities in current law. And since when must “politics” and “public policy” considerations be divorced from legal factors?
If this is totally divorced from legal and constitutional considerations (despite what Markus tries to argue) and it’s just some general philosophical, moral, or humanitarian debate about how many times somebody should be prosecuted and how stressful and onerous trials are for defendants, then there is no magic line drawn at “second” trials, first trials, or whatever number.
“Your response doesn't respond to that at all.”
You didn’t make any arguments. You just assert that objections or responses to specific aspects or segments of Markus’s post (like his ploys for defendant pity) are insufficient “strawmen” and then ascribe some depth, scale, interconnection, and complexity to Markus’s post, and allege we do not comprehend it. Oh well.
The post argues that “double jeopardy” should prohibit second trials, bemoans how that’s not the state of the law, wishes for it to change, and makes some appeals to sympathy about how retrials are unfair, expensive, stressful, and traumatizing to defendants. It’s not some grand refined philosophical treatise, and you haven’t presented one either. If you have some subtle brilliant argument beyond vibes, feel free to keep it as your cherished secret. We won’t grieve its absence.
“But I don't need to "rail again" any founding fathers”
Of course not, because they’re not the “arbiters” who fashioned and promulgated all these “double jeopardy” loopholes that govern today. Those mostly came from judges in subsequent decades and centuries, up to and including the current Supreme Court. The latest decision upholding the “dual sovereign” loophole to “double jeopardy” came out in 2019. Most of the judges who issued it are not “long dead” and are in fact still living and sitting on the court to this day.
“Also not attempting to answer or define who "we" are as a society. Just noting that the decision of whether to re-try has the potential to shed light on that question--again, divorced from whether it's constitutional permissible.”
You said "Not to mention: the constitution, "justice," fairness, politics, public policy, and more broadly, who we are (or want to be) as a society. You forgot those." That implies you think that persons who reject the post’s arguments (or yours, whatever they are) somehow “forgot” and did not consider the “constitution” and the question of “who we are (or want to be) as a society.” Well, they didn’t. So whatever you meant, the answer is that lots of people probably do not want society to be one that shares your concerns or conclusions on this question. If you are totally agnostic and neutral about that, great.
“just another strawman fallacy”
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
“I was just pointing out--actually, asking the OP--what they meant by "justice," because, to me, the predicate question begged their response. And I wondered if they had considered that.”
Your objection to the OP said "Worse, you're starting from a premise of "justice for three murdered infants." Do you not see the bias that injects? They weren't "murdered" if mom lacked mental capacity." You’re stipulating a definition of “murder” that is predicated upon the actor having sufficient competence and saying that there is no “murder” if that standard is not met. You are assuming the OP shares your premise that “murder” can only occur if the perpetrator had sufficient competent mental capacity. He and others may not share that belief. For him and others, it’s “murder” if the killing is bad enough and we hate the perpetrator enough.
“your dehumanizing comparison to wild animals being put down could really go either way”
I’ve never understood why conclusions about somebody’s psychology incompetence, illness, or unfitness necessarily entail outcomes of care or compassion, especially after the person blames their condition for causing them to commit some horrific crime which they cannot control. If we conclude that they are that way, they usually get warehoused (like Andrea Yates is now). Though I suspect many others would consider solutions like “euthanasia” or “disposal.” Some cities would like to let addicts die.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/ohio-city-council-member-wants-911-to-ignore-drug-overdose-calls/
Mentally ill people who committed infamous crimes probably rank even lower than addicts in popular estimation.
Ah okay then, so there was a TV series that there was no evidence Andrea Yates watched, in which a mother suffocated an infant with a pillow (not drowned), and later claimed postpartum psychosis, and therefore it would have been reasonable for the jury to conclude that Yates watched that show, then got the idea to drown all her kids (which she did not deny doing) and then claim postpartum psychosis (which she had previously experienced, been diagnosed of, and warned not to have another child because of it), and because the TV lawyers came to be suspicious of their TV client’s claim of psychosis, then that TV mom was definitely guilty, and then of course the real Andrea Yates must be guilty, and now so is Clancy. God help us if that passes for justice in this country.
🙄 - from your friend.
I used a general legal definition of "murder" --- ya know, since we're talking about a criminal trial here. Yeah, I guess that was an "assumption," but probably a better and more appropriate one to make than whatever definition of "murder" was floating around OP's mind.
But sure, you can change that definition in whatever way you want to undermine and talk past my whole point.
I bet you're a real treat to have as opposing counsel.
Or sound logic. Unfortunately, that's where we are now.
"God help us if that passes for justice in this country."
Eh, maybe Dietz wanted to make the impression that mothers killing their children and blaming mental illness and delusion had already circulated in popular culture and media and was available for would be murderous mothers the world over.
Either way, trial has always been theater and farce. So of course it will collide with other kinds of theater and farce.
"I used a general legal definition of "murder" --- ya know, since we're talking about a criminal trial here."
And the prosecuting attorneys in the criminal trial used the term "murder" to describe the killings and presented them as such in the trial. If the attorneys participating in the criminal case itself can use the loaded prejudicial term "murder," why should outside commentators with no connection to the case whatsoever have to be more circumspect or constrained in their terminology? Is it inappropriate to say "murder" unless and until the defendant is certified competent, convicted of all charges, and all convictions upheld on appeal?
@8:01PM Yes I’m sure he wanted to make precisely that impression. That’s why the guilty verdict was reversed. #FRE
Um, yes. If someone's been tried and the jury hung, then they're not a "murderer" and didn't commit "murder." Especially so here, where it was 11 to 1 and the 1 refused to acquit even after admitting the prosecution didn't get him over the reasonable doubt threshold. She was effectively acquitted, and folks continuing to call her a child-murderer because it vibes more with their agenda is so transparent to those of us who don't lose all faculties and critical thinking ability when a precious, innocent, miracle of god is harmed or perishes.
As for the incredulous way in which you phrased the question to begin with, you get yet another eye roll.
"If someone's been tried and the jury hung, then they're not a "murderer" and didn't commit "murder.""
What about people who were acquitted by one jury but then convicted by another?
What about people who were never tried for murders (even though there was good evidence they did them) because they fled prosecution indefinitely or benefited from complicit jurisdictions?
Are people enjoined from using the "m" word for such cases?
"you get yet another eye roll"
Aww, careful you don't suffer oculogyric crisis.
Good for the juror sticking to his guns!
Post a Comment