Lindsay Clancy trial juror removal request
by Flint: Lindsay Clancy
The defense attorney for Lindsay Clancy is demanding the removal of a single holdout juror who refuses to listen to the law on reasonable doubt. The lawyer argues that a previous soft instruction at the sidebar was insufficient and formally moved to eject the juror who spurned the court's instructions. There is real concern that the jury's inability to reach a verdict will result in a mistrial, which would necessitate retrying the case to attempt a conviction. The attorney stated that returning in half an hour with a mistrial due to this specific juror would be a shame, it's a real shame. The court received an instruction from the jury foreperson confirming one juror refuses to listen to the law on reasonable doubt. The attorney objected to the ruling and requested further inquiry before making the formal motion to remove the juror.
Transcript (en)
The court has an instruction from the foreperson of that juror 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 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 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. All right. Call on.
