The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has received an emergency appeal filed by Lindsay Clancy’s legal team, according to CBS, the BBC’s US partner.
Clancy’s attorney Kevin Reddington hopes the high court will intervene and halt plans by judge William Sullivan to declare a mistrial after the jury said for the third time this week it has not reached a unanimous decision.
If the Supreme Judicial Court does not intervene, a mistrial will be declared. If the court does choose to step in, it’s unclear what would unfold next.
Why would defense not want a mistrial?
My guess is a non-unanimous jury means at least some jurors said not guilty, which is an outcome you’d want to pursue rather than gamble with a new jury that might say guilty… especially in a case like this that historically would be a slam dunk for guilty.
Every legal and psychiatric expert that’s looked at this case with an objective eye describes it as anything but a “slam dunk.”
Even at the absolute worst case for the defense it’s an incredible cascade of systemic failures.
The rumours are, apparently, that it was expected that most jurors were not guilty, so the defense basically won except for the holdout
I have no idea how they would know that though
Trials are expensive and traumatic. A mistrial isn’t good for the defense unless there’s specific mistakes they think they can correct or there’s a hostile judge or whatever.
They want a beneficial verdict, not to drag a sensationalized case out.
In theory, anyways. In practice that might just be something the defense attorney is saying because you can’t admit “we’re hoping the prosecutor stops being a glory seeking dick about it now that they know a conviction won’t be easy and offers a better plea deal”