Aaron Parnas breaks down the Lindsay Clancy case from a legal perspective, including a breakdown of the trial, what is going on with the jury, possibilities of mistrial, and much more!
-------------------------------
Substack: https://aaronparnas.substack.com/
X: / aaronparnas
Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@aaronparnas6?...
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/aaronparnas...
Facebook: / aaron.parnas
Threads: https://www.threads.net/@aaronparnas?...
Chaos has erupted today in the Lindsay Clancy trial. I'm a lawyer, I'm a journalist, and I'm going to answer every single question you have about where things stand with Lindsay Clancy, where we're heading, and what you need to know about. Because I've been through multiple jury trials in the past, and well, this one is unique for a multitude of reasons, but especially what we saw in the courtroom today.
Jurors are now on hour 37 of deliberations. They can deliberate for as long as they want. But they sent in a note. Everyone thought they were going to be hopelessly deadlocked. Everyone thought the case would be ending in a mistrial. But the note said something drastically different. It said that one juror in the case could not follow the judge's instructions.
A bombshell. What does that mean, and what happens next? Make sure to subscribe, like, comment, share, get the word out, and drop any questions that you have below in the chat and in the comment section. I will try to answer as many as possible. Like I said, I'm a lawyer, not just a journalist, and I've been through numerous cases. Here's what you need to know about.
First, we're on hour 37 of deliberations. At this point, the jury has said that it was deadlocked once. The judge sent them back to deliberate, deadlocked twice. The judge gave a dynamite charge, in Massachusetts called the Tuey Rodriguez charge. Sent them back, told them to deliberate again. After on day uh after 35, 36 hours, they came back and they said that there is one juror who refuses to deliberate, or rather refuses to follow the judge's instructions. Here's attorney Kevin Reddington making that clear.
>> Fact you wanted that you're allowing us to be heard in public rather than at the sidebar, the juror. The court has an instruction from the foreperson of that jury that's been working for a week now, saying that there's one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you've given him or her on reasonable doubt.
And I suggest respectfully that the soft instruction that you gave them saying at the sidebar, can you listen to the law as I instruct you, does not focus on the issue. It is the question is not sufficient enough.
It does not allow any foundation for a motion to remove remove the juror who refuses to accept your instructions on the law on reasonable doubt. And if we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of a because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it's a shame. It's a real shame.
And that's why I object to the court's ruling. I request that we have further inquiry. I request that we My motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt.
