Latest / DEEP INSIGHT / Jurors dismissed after chaos on sixth day of deliberations

Transcript

Jurors dismissed after chaos on sixth day of deliberations · DEEP INSIGHT

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: In the last hour, the judge in the Lindsay Clancy
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: trial told jurors to keep deliberating after they sent the
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: judge another note. It's now been six days. That's how
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: long 12 people have been trying to answer one question.
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: Was Lindsay Clancy criminally responsible when she killed her three children?
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: And still, at this moment, no verdict. The defense attorney
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: now says it could be an 11 to 1 issue.
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: They've seen the evidence. They've heard the experts. They've gone
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: back to the pill bottles, the knife, the medications. And
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: in Massachusetts, there's no clock that runs out, no time
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: limit on deliberations. It's been a tense and confusing last
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: hour in that courtroom in Massachusetts. Let's shed some light
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: on it with national correspondent Brian Yinnis, who's live in Plymouth, Massachusetts,
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: now with more.
• 0:50
  Speaker 2: Brian.
• 0:53
  Speaker 3: Well, good afternoon. Just a remarkable last hour or so
• 0:57
  Speaker 3: in court. Judge William Sullivan receiving that note from the jury,
• 1:01
  Speaker 3: and then he gave an instruction to that jury. First,
• 1:04
  Speaker 3: he did a sidebar, taking each juror, all 12 of them,
• 1:08
  Speaker 3: and asking them something, a question. And then after that,
• 1:13
  Speaker 3: he told the court and he read an instruction to
• 1:16
  Speaker 3: the jury about reasonable doubt, about what it means that
• 1:20
  Speaker 3: the prosecution has to prove this case. beyond a reasonable doubt.
• 1:25
  Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
• 1:25
  Speaker 4: It's not enough for the Commonwealth to establish a probability,
• 1:30
  Speaker 4: even a strong probability, that the defendant is more likely
• 1:34
  Speaker 4: to be guilty than not guilty. That is not enough.
• 1:38
  Speaker 5: Instead, the evidence must convince you of the defendant's guilt
• 1:43
  Speaker 5: to a reasonable and moral certainty, a certainty that convinces
• 1:47
  Speaker 5: your understanding and satisfies your reason and judgment needs.
• 1:53
  Speaker 3: Now, according to Lindsey Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, he then,
• 1:57
  Speaker 3: after the jury was dismissed from the courtroom, had an objection.
• 2:01
  Speaker 3: He said, ultimately, that it's a shame. He also said
• 2:04
  Speaker 3: that it is one juror who refuses to listen to
• 2:07
  Speaker 3: the instruction of reasonable doubt. Here is that back and
• 2:11
  Speaker 3: forth between the defense and the prosecution and the judge.
• 2:14
  Speaker 6: Watch.
• 2:16
  Speaker 2: It's a shame. It's a real shame. And that's why
• 2:19
  Speaker 2: I object to the court's ruling. I request that we
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: have further inquiry. I request that my motion is to
• 2:25
  Speaker 2: remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction
• 2:29
  Speaker 2: on reasonable doubt.
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: I think what Your Honor has done by asking each
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: juror if they're able to follow the law and then
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: giving a general instruction on reasonable doubt is appropriate.
• 2:39
  Speaker 6: I don't feel it's appropriate for me to say I
• 2:42
  Speaker 6: agree with one juror or 11. At this point, I've asked...
• 2:48
  Speaker 6: If they are able to follow my instructions of courting,
• 2:52
  Speaker 6: they swore earlier that they could.
• 2:57
  Speaker 3: Okay, so there we have it. We know, at least
• 2:59
  Speaker 3: from that back and forth, that it appears one juror
• 3:02
  Speaker 3: has a problem with this idea of beyond reasonable doubt,
• 3:05
  Speaker 3: which is why the judge reread his jury instruction on
• 3:08
  Speaker 3: what it means for the prosecution to have to prove
• 3:11
  Speaker 3: beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay Clancy had the capacity
• 3:16
  Speaker 3: to appreciate that when she killed her kids it was wrong.
• 3:18
  Speaker 3: and that she had the ability to control her actions.
• 3:21
  Speaker 3: So that's where we're at right now, and we expect
• 3:24
  Speaker 3: court usually is dismissed by this hour, and if they
• 3:27
  Speaker 3: are dismissed without any kind of note or verdict, we're
• 3:30
  Speaker 3: talking about day seven of deliberations tomorrow.
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: Will?
• 3:33
  Speaker 7: Incredible.
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: Okay, thank you for that, Brian Yinnis. We're joined now
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: by criminal defense attorneys Josh Ritter and Donna Rotuno from
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: outside the courthouse. Josh, Donna, it's good to see you.
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: I'd love to pick up on this idea forwarded by
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: the defense attorney that right now the jury is broken
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: down into a composition of 11 versus 1. The defense
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: attorney certainly suggested that the 11 intended to go his way,
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: not guilty by reason of insanity, and that there was
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: one holdout. Now, the question is, how would he know
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: that information? Do we know that is accurate information? It
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: seems to be coming from the note the jurors passed
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: to the judge. So I guess I would start, Donna,
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: with Does the defense counsel have access to that jury note?
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: Would he know at this point the breakdown of the jury?
• 4:23
  Speaker 7: Well, can you ask that question again? Because someone's in
• 4:26
  Speaker 7: our ear and we can't we can't hear your question.
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: OK, I apologize for that. There's maybe something happening in
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: the courtroom. We'll try to keep up. as the jury
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: often lines up during this time of day and is dismissed.
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: So I can imagine somebody was passing you some information
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: about what's happening inside the courtroom. My question, though, is
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: why the defense counsel would speak with such certainty about
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: the breakdown of the jury, 11 versus 1. Is it
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: the note passed from the jury to the judge? Would
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: he have been proxy to that note? Would he have
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: seen that information and known then the composition of the jury?
• 4:59
  Speaker 7: Well, it's a good question. And yes, he would have.
• 5:01
  Speaker 7: So those notes need to be read out loud to
• 5:04
  Speaker 7: the lawyers and the parties. So they're not reading them
• 5:07
  Speaker 7: to the public. But yes, they would absolutely be letting
• 5:11
  Speaker 7: the parties know. So there may have been something in
• 5:14
  Speaker 7: that note that's given Kevin Redding this reason to be
• 5:18
  Speaker 7: so upset about not replacing one juror. Because if he
• 5:22
  Speaker 7: didn't have that information, it would not make sense to
• 5:24
  Speaker 7: me that he would be so agitated and so specific
• 5:29
  Speaker 7: about this argument that he is making.
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: Okay, so Kevin Redding essentially becomes a reliable witness for
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: the rest of us of where we stand right now
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: with that jury. Eleven leaning towards not guilty by reason
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: of insanity, one holding out. Now, Josh, the request for
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: Redding to replace that juror then for an alternate juror,
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: in his estimation, in his argument to the judge, because
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: they can't follow your instruction. Now, there's a lot of
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: reasons to remove a juror, but I can't imagine one
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: of the reasons is because he's not willing to go
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: with your desired verdict.
• 6:05
  Speaker 8: Right.
• 6:06
  Speaker 9: Yeah, this is interesting because jurors oftentimes disagree on the burden, right?
• 6:14
  Speaker 9: They may feel that the burden has been met or
• 6:16
  Speaker 9: the burden has not been met. What is being articulated
• 6:19
  Speaker 9: here is that they can't agree on what it means.
• 6:23
  Speaker 9: Another one juror is refusing to acknowledge what that law
• 6:27
  Speaker 9: means or acknowledging what the law means and flat out
• 6:30
  Speaker 9: refusing to follow it, which is far more difficult. And
• 6:33
  Speaker 9: that's why Reddington is so upset. He's saying this is
• 6:36
  Speaker 9: not a matter of somebody just disagreeing. This is a
• 6:38
  Speaker 9: matter of somebody refusing to follow instruction and follow the law,
• 6:41
  Speaker 9: and therefore they should be replaced. And if they are replaced,
• 6:45
  Speaker 9: by the way, we're looking at starting this entire process
• 6:48
  Speaker 9: all over again.
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: When you say starting this entire process, you mean starting
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: deliberations all over again?
• 6:56
  Speaker 9: Yeah, you would have to start your deliberations all over
• 6:59
  Speaker 9: again with a brand new juror because you can't just
• 7:01
  Speaker 9: pick up where you left off and get a brand
• 7:03
  Speaker 9: new vote. You have to go through that entire process
• 7:06
  Speaker 9: with that new juror. I don't mean that we would
• 7:10
  Speaker 9: be sitting here for days, but you have to begin
• 7:12
  Speaker 9: your deliberations again.
• 7:14
  Speaker 4: Right.
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: Out of curiosity, the alternate juror wouldn't sit in the
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: room during deliberations and listen but not participate? Would they
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: be separated from the 12 in deliberations?
• 7:28
  Speaker 9: Yeah, they're separated from that 12 during deliberations. They've watched
• 7:32
  Speaker 9: the entire trial, obviously, so they're aware of the facts
• 7:36
  Speaker 9: and circumstances, but then they get back into the room
• 7:38
  Speaker 9: and they're given just as much an opportunity to deliberate
• 7:41
  Speaker 9: as anybody else.
• 7:43
  Speaker 8: Okay.
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: As we understand it, I want to pick up this conversation.
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: There's more about this 11 to verse 1 breakdown. The
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: court has resumed now in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial.
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: The jury has reentered the courtroom. Let's listen in.
• 7:53
  Speaker 3: All right.
• 7:54
  Speaker 9: Go take a seat.
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: Your Honor, present before the court, we have 12 deliberating
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: jurors and six alternates in the matter of Commonwealth v.
• 8:27
  Speaker 9: Lindsay Clancy.
• 8:27
  Speaker 7: All other parties are present. All right.
• 8:30
  Speaker 6: Well, good afternoon, everybody.
• 8:32
  Speaker 8: What I'm going to do is excuse you until tomorrow
• 8:35
  Speaker 8: morning at 9 o'clock, all right? And then I'll speak
• 8:39
  Speaker 8: to you at that point tomorrow morning. So remember the
• 8:43
  Speaker 8: instructions that I've given you over and over again. Stay
• 8:47
  Speaker 8: away from any coverage about this. They'll talk about this case.
• 8:51
  Speaker 8: And I will see everybody tomorrow morning.
• 8:53
  Speaker 2: Okay. Court, all.
• 9:03
  Speaker 6: Rise.
• 9:05
  Speaker 7: Be sure to like and subscribe for all the Fox
• 9:08
  Speaker 7: News latest on YouTube and catch full shows streaming now
• 9:11
  Speaker 7: on Fox 1.