Breaking: John Fetterman Praises Trump, Endorses GOP Candidate in Surprise Appearance at RNC Convention

Whitmer's Mileage Tax Hits the People Who Drive the Most: Michigan Just Spent $7.65M Tax Dollars Testing it Out

Blue State Judge Hands Down Gun Possession Sentence to 19-Year-Old Who Justifiably Killed Man in Self-Defense

Charlie Kirk Might Have Lost His Life, But He Won the Argument

Military Base Guards Cleared to Say 'Have a Blessed Day' After Pete Hegseth Steps in to Oppose 'Radical Anti-Christian' Group

Internet Demands Probe After Mitch McConnell's Wife Reportedly Revealed to Have CCP Ties

Women's Soccer Fans Wearing XX-XY Gear Ejected from Stadium, Seek Shelter at Women's Bar but Get Ejected from There Too: Report

Juror Acknowledges Lindsay Clancy May Be Guilty, But That She Didn't Want to Send Her to Prison Where There's No 'Help'

The tragic social farce that is the Lindsay Clancy murder trial has become iconically summed up by one of the 11 jurors in a TV interview: “He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.”

Yes, well, one can see how that could be an impediment to voting for acquittal.

If you get beyond that quote, it actually seems somehow worse, since at least several other jurors seemed to admit their decision to vote for acquittal by reason of insanity was not based on the legal facts of the case, but instead based on their sympathy toward the defendant, who they didn’t want to send to prison without “help” for her mental illness.

Or, at least, that’s the takeaway from a new interview with a Clancy juror, which is just as horrifying and disheartening as the one that produced the lede quote.

The general consensus before jurors began giving interviews was that, if the social media discourse surrounding the Clancy case had been toxic and stupid, the jury’s decision wasn’t. It’s just that the facts as presented in the courtroom, combined with the unusual nature of Massachusetts’ insanity plea statute, made things for the panel a great deal more complex and difficult than a Facebook post and that, due to the vagaries of the trial, they couldn’t arrive at a verdict.

Massachusetts, we were reminded, not only uses the Model Penal Code rule, whereby a defendant must only not have a “substantial capacity… to conform his conduct to the requirements of law,” but also puts the burden of proof on the prosecution.

The Clancy trial, observers said, presented — at least when boiled down — a Catch-22 from the prosecution’s side.

Nobody argued that Clancy wasn’t mentally ill when........

© Western Journalism