News

Well they arent required to have evidence. Their reasoning is their own.

The quote is that he couldn't "prove what he was saying," which suggests that he had his own idea of what happened instead.

We don't know what that idea was (yet?), and depending on what it is, Lone Juror may be justified or not.

Because of the way the justice system is configured in the US, a juror's vote is unassailable. This is what jury nullification stems from. That can and surely does go the other way, where someone is convicted of a crime they didn't commit, just because the jury felt like it, damn the evidence or lack thereof.

Can't wait until they decide that federal juries get to be handpicked by a "neutral party."

I don't know any particulars about this specific case because I did not follow it. But that being said, he doesn't have to justify his vote in my opinion. There's a reason we have a jury of multiple people. The entire system was designed specifically for this possibility to arise to put a check on the possibility of mob mentality.

I don't know if he made the right call. I'm just glad that he has the right to make the call of his conscious in this system.

Jurors do not have to "follow the law". If it was that simple, we would just let the judge decide innocence and guilt.

Jurors can acquit people they know are guilty, so it stands to reason they can convict someone they know are innocent. It's not ideal, just superior to the alternative.

Love that all the incels are going to bitch and whine about a case they only know from headlines for a month.

That juror could end up in legal trouble because it sounds like they lied during the voir dire process. One of the things they will ask you is if you are willing to follow the judge's instructions. We had a lady dismissed because she said no, she would use her own judgement.

It's weird to see the other jurors shit talk the lone one to the media. Why do it? It make them look like assholes.

I dont know why he keeps saying that like he's owed evidence. Jurors arent required to present any evidence. This Dargie guy sounds like a whiner.

Gotta say, I don't like this. If you are on a JURY, you know a fucking Jury, I feel you should put your emotions aside and focus on the facts of the case.

The facts are that Lindsay Clancy showed clear signs of her mental state degrading, only really had pills pushed on her by her medical team, expressed concern to her husband about how she was going to harm the kids in December of 2022, and both her and her husband expressed how the medication was making her worse and worse to the point of suicidal intent up to the night of the incident.

For people like you and me who are not on the jury? An emotional response is okay. The brute fact is 3 children lost their lives, but if you are on the Jury and her fate is in your hand, you really do need to be cautious about this. You need to put facts over feelings. To me, this looks like an open and shut case of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. The facts point to it.

If this Juror really did not present anything to the contrary and went off vibes? That sucks. That really really sucks. And if he was browsing his phone in the room as stated here... WHY THE FUCK ARE PHONES ALLOWED IN THE DELIBERATION ROOM!? Was he betting on the case on Kalshi and fixing this to make money off it going to mistrial!? Was he looking at social media about this case!? Was he talking to people about this?!

This is an absolute failure on the Juror's part and he failed at his civic duty.

Some people are just contrarian

Being a contrarian is a huge red flag

This is strange, we know there was expert testimony that Clancy was not suffering psychosis. Did the jurors simply forget that testimony or was there further conflicting testimony that actually cast doubt?

The public reaction and copycat killing are disturbing to say the least.