Lindsay Clancy’s holdout juror shows ongoing skepticism of the ‘insanity defense’
Lindsay Clancy was tried for three murders and pleaded insanity as her defense. During jury deliberations, one juror refused to vote for acquittal despite saying he had reasonable doubt about her guilt. A retired judge has suggested this juror may have misunderstood the legal standard of reasonable doubt, which should require acquittal if present.
3 across the spectrum · tap a section to jump
The story so far
2 developments- Sep 12Holdout juror in Clancy case may have misapplied reasonable doubt: Retired judge
- Sep 13Lindsay Clancy’s holdout juror shows ongoing skepticism of the ‘insanity defense’
Who covered each development
No new developments
Quiet for 16 daysLast development · Sep 13 — Lindsay Clancy’s holdout juror shows ongoing skepticism of the ‘insanity defense’
The bigger story
Left
0 viewpointsNo Left coverage yet.
A blind spot on this side of the story.
Center
3 viewpointsHoldout juror in Clancy case may have misapplied reasonable doubt: Retired judge
Holdout in Lindsay Clancy trial said he had reasonable doubt but still wouldn't acquit, juror says
Right
0 viewpointsNo Right coverage yet.
A blind spot on this side of the story.