1. The defense lawyer, Kevin Reddington, wanted the holdout juror removed by the judge, and even filed an emergency appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Reddington accused the lone holdout juror of being “biased” against those with “debilitating mental illness.” I can’t blame the guy for trying: this is called “zealous representation,” and Massachusetts (I’m a Bay State lawyer, remember) is one of the few remaining states that still requires its lawyers to “represent a client zealously within the bounds of the law.” One “X” wag summarized Reddington’s demand as “The juror is impermissibly biased against my client, and we know that because the juror did not vote to acquit my client.”

I might argue that the 11 jurors who wanted to acquit Clancy were biased in favor of mothers who snap and kill their children.

2. That phenomenon, which includes the pro-baby killing supporters of Clancy (Is it possible that any of them oppose abortion on demand?) who I discussed in the first EA post on the matter, is an example of what author Allie Beth Stuckey describes in her book Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion:

“We are told that empathy is the highest virtue—the key to being a good person. Is that true? Or has “empathy,” like so many other words of our day—“tolerance,” “justice,” “acceptance”—been hijacked by bad actors who exploit compassion for their own political ends?  In “Toxic Empathy,” Allie Beth Stuckey argues that empathy has become a tool of manipulation by left-wing activists who bully people into believing that they must adopt progressive positions to be loving. She explores the five most heated issues through which toxic empathy is deployed: abortion, gender, sexuality, immigration, and social justice. Progressives use catchy mantras to present their perspective as empathetic, like “abortion is healthcare,” “love is love,” or “no human being is illegal,” but in each case, they ignore the other side of the moral equation. For example, abortion is presented as compassionate for the woman, but what about the human life the procedure kills?”

Indeed, the pro-Clancy mob’s refusal to focus on the three innocent victims of Clancy’s crime is, as I mentioned earlier, a symptom of dangerous ethics rot.

3. Judge Sullivan brought the jurors into the courtroom one by one and asked each whether they could follow his instructions regarding “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Then he brought the entire jury back into the courtroom and explained the meaning of reasonable doubt again before ordering them to return to deliberations.

“I want to remind you that you are required to follow my instructions on the law as I gave them to you,” Sullivan told the jury. “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt.”

That little distinction, in my experience, is almost impossible for laypersons to grasp, and a lot of lawyers aren’t so clear on it either.

Reddington again asked the judge to remove the juror accused of disregarding the instructions and replace that juror with an alternate. Sullivan refused, saying he could not determine which side of the jury was correct. “I don’t feel that it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations,” Sullivan said “I don’t feel it’s appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or the 11.”

Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague, of course, approved of Judge Sullivan’s response. “I think what Your Honor has done by asking each juror if they’re able to follow the law and then giving a general instruction on reasonable doubt is appropriate,” she said.

I agree.

4. After the mistrial, Reddington gave a speech to reporters on the courthouse steps, condemning the hold-out juror among other declarations.. On “X”, Prof. Turley flagged his statement as unethical:

“Reddington’s attack on the holdout juror in front of the courthouse was, in my view, an outrageous and reckless moment. It would warrant a response from the judge about stoking the rage against this one juror……I would not be surprised if District Attorney Cruz sends a letter to Judge Sullivan on the attack of Reddington on this holdout juror. The fact is that his name is likely to be discovered eventually, and Reddington just fueled the rage with rhetoric about “stealing” the case and denying justice for some unknown reason. The reason is that the juror was not convinced by the defense…It was a breathtaking lack of judgment and restraint from the defense counsel. In my view, it would warrant a communication from the court. In a nation of rage addicts, Reddington just supplied a villain for cathartic fury.”

I must note that the professor has a book out about “the Age of Rage” in America, and is exploiting every opportunity to relate current events to his product.

5. The New York Post reports that another distraught mother, Corie Walsh, 38, is charged with first-degree murder after one of her neighbors found Walsh’s son, Barrett, hanging from the rafters in the family’s basement, his feet off the ground, and a ligature around his neck. Walsh was reportedly found lying in a bathtub, fully clothed and drenched in bloody water. A few hours before, she had been discussing the Clancy case with neighbors.

Noting this story, Ann Althouse delivered a trenchant, chilling comment: “Is this the new “Me Too” movement?”

6. There were 9 women and 3 men on the jury. How did that happen? Well, in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1994 landmark case J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., using peremptory challenges (strikes without stating a reason) to exclude jurors based solely on gender (or race) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Clancy’s case shows why that ruling can be “prejudicial to the administration of justice”. Many…too many… women are wired to have “toxic empathy” for mothers who snap, as the protests in Clancy’s favor demonstrate.

7. I was watching “Fox and Friends” as they discussed the mistrial. One of the three idiots said, “We all know that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and must also prove that Clancy is sane beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“What?” I thought. That’s wrong: the burden of proof in an insanity defense lies with the defense, not the prosecution. But not in Massachusetts! It is one of only four states that holds the prosecution responsible for proving that a defendant claiming to be not guilty by reason of insanity was sane at the time of the killing. Almost no news sources reporting on the case mentioned that, and it’s obviously important; the quirky rule may explain why 11 jurors concluded that the State hadn’t proved the case.

The Fox host was still wrong, however. The standard for the prosecution in proving a defendant’s sanity is not beyond a reasonable doubt, but the much, much easier “by a predominance of the evidence.”