The juror at the center of the increasingly tense Lindsay Clancy deliberations has been revealed to be a man. The disclosure came as the jury returned to Plymouth Superior Court on Friday for a seventh day of deliberations. Clancy’s defense claims the unidentified juror is refusing to properly apply the court’s instructions concerning reasonable doubt.
However, prosecutors maintain that the dispute appears to involve a legitimate disagreement over the evidence, while Judge William Sullivan has found insufficient grounds to remove the juror. The 12-person jury consists of nine women and three men.
Interest in the closely watched trial showed no signs of slowing as the latest day of deliberations began. More than 100 people reportedly gathered outside the courthouse in Plymouth, Massachusetts, before the doors opened at 8:30 a.m. A couple of dozen reporters also watched the parking lot where defense attorney Kevin Reddington typically arrives.
The jury returned to the deliberation room after beginning its seventh day without a verdict. The panel had deliberated for six days before returning Friday morning. Jurors have twice reported being unable to reach a unanimous decision.
Holdout Juror Revealed To Be A Man
5The gender of the juror emerged as Reddington continued arguing that the panelist was preventing the jury from reaching a verdict.
The defense attorney had previously referred to the juror as “him or her.” However, according to The New York Post, during Friday’s proceedings, he reportedly used male pronouns while discussing the panelist, revealing that the juror is one of the three men serving on the jury. The man’s identity has not been publicly disclosed.
The revelation does not establish how the juror intends to vote. Although Reddington has portrayed the man as the lone obstacle to a verdict favorable to Clancy, the contents of jury deliberations remain largely confidential.
Lindsay Clancy’s Lawyer Accuses Juror Of Ignoring The Law
5The dispute erupted publicly on September 3 after the jury foreperson sent a note concerning one member of the panel. “The court has an instruction from the foreperson of that jury that has been working for a week, now saying there is one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you have given him or her on reasonable doubt,” Reddington said.
The lawyer asked Sullivan to remove the juror, arguing that allowing the panelist to remain could end the lengthy trial without a resolution. “If we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of the court, it’s a shame, it’s a real shame,” he continued.
On Friday, Reddington reportedly claimed the foreperson’s note indicated that the juror had acknowledged doubt but refused to apply it. The attorney argued that the man had been dishonest when he told Sullivan that he could follow the court’s instructions.
Sullivan rejected that interpretation, finding that the note did not prove the juror was refusing to follow the law. The judge declined to question or remove the panelist and instead reminded the entire jury that its members must follow his legal instructions.
Prosecutor Says The Note Shows A Legitimate Disagreement
5Prosecuting attorney Jennifer Sprague opposed the defense’s effort to remove the juror, per BBC. Sprague said there was no indication of bias, a lack of impartiality, or outside influence affecting the panel. She argued that the foreperson’s note showed a disagreement about how jurors should evaluate the evidence. “What we have here is a note that indicates a disagreement,” Sprague said.
Each juror was individually questioned under oath Thursday about whether they could follow Sullivan’s instructions and continue deliberating. All 12 reportedly said they could.
The prosecution argued that those responses did not provide a legal basis for removing a juror after deliberations had already begun. Sullivan also cautioned jurors against including identifying information or revealing the panel’s numerical split in any future notes, according to the Associated Press.
Judge William Sullivan Refuses To Remove The Juror
5Sullivan has repeatedly declined to intervene in the disagreement by siding with either the lone juror or the remaining members of the panel. After questioning the jurors individually, the judge repeated his instructions on reasonable doubt and ordered deliberations to continue. He previously explained that it would be inappropriate for him to “agree with one juror or 11.”
Removing a juror during deliberations requires more than evidence that the panelist disagrees with everyone else. A judge must avoid intruding on the substance of deliberations or dismissing someone simply because of that person’s view of the case.
For now, the man remains on the jury, and no mistrial has been declared.
