photo #9383961

Holding Out For NOTHINGThe Clancy trial continues to be the fetid gift that keeps on giving, even having past. The current subject de jour is the imagined heroism of the lone juror who insisted on voting to convict. We find this adulation misplaced. The LawFirst of all, we in no way denigrate their right to vote as they please. This is a nigh sacred authority of a duely empaneled member of a jury, especially a petit jury, with centuries of historical precedent (on both sides of the Atlantic), and at least one impeachment trial, behind it. That said, was his position legally justfied? As we have mentioned in previous Posts, under Massachusets law, once a credible claim of insanity is raised, it becomes the burden of the Prosecution to prove otherwise. The huge bag of *13* psychoactive prescriptions, and the record of poor supervision and follow-up by caregivers, kind of established a credible claim. And the resulting burden proved a challenge, as the prosecution was incompetent. Their choice of expert psychiatic testimony was poorly vetted, and stumbled badly in cross examination. So badly, in fact, that he resigned from his job as soon as he got back home. And they got at least one other thing wrong, re the exercise bands. ANd that's just what I caught, from, casual viewing of clips. So seemingly credible claim, prosecutorial failure . . . How a guilty vote? I can only conclude he did not find the original insanity claim credible, or something about the prosecution's case convinced him that they had satisfied their burden of proof of sanity. EffectMore importantly, we must challenge the notion that this juror's resistance to peer pressure (which is a gernrally laudable trait) changed anything. If he had caved in, she would have been commited to an insane asylum. But since he Didn't, the State now has two choices. #1: They can attempt a retral - and almost certainly lose. In fact ,the case at this point is So weak, Clancy's team could probably go for a bench trial, without a jury. #2: They can save the public some money, and punt, going straight to a commitment proceedings. In either case, she ends up committed to the very same insane asylum she would have been had he caved. At this point, someone is going to claim that she would be released from there soon. This claim is not statistically founded. Most people committed to asylums pursuant to a "not guilty by reason . . ." verdict end up spending as much time, or longer, as they would have in prison. This is because invountary commitment does Not have scheduled release, and tend to be under less pressure to lessen crowding via early release. So, either way that guy voted in that room, no change in outcome. But people want a 'hero'. So a hero they create. *shrug*