There is an interesting parallel between the #calvincarnes case and the #Lindsayclancy case. Both had juries deadlocked at 11 to 1, with one holdout juror. In Carnes’s 2008 trial, the holdout was the lone juror voting for acquittal. She was removed after 9 days of deliberation and most certainly... the case was heading for a hung jury. Prosecutors flagged “issues” with her questionnaire. The prosecution ran criminal records checks on the jurors (not okay btw) and in this case, the holdout juror’s ex husband. Discovering she did not disclose an old criminal record of her ex, the Prosecution’s motion to remove this juror was allowed and she was replaced by an alternate. The jury convicted the next day. In the Lindsey Clancy case, the holdout was the lone juror refusing to accept not guilty by reason of insanity, even after potentially admitting reasonable doubt. The defense asked the judge to remove that juror, but the judge refused, saying you can’t kick someone just for disagreeing with the other eleven, and declared a mistrial. When you think of this in connection with other issues in the Carnes case, most specifically an allegation of a conflict of interest relative to the trial Judge in Carnes (Judge Brady, now deceased) and the Prosecutor in Carnes, Joshua Wall, now Judge Wall (at least in small part thanks to the stellar recommendations written by Judge Brady about “Josh”, including specific references to the Carnes case in those recommendations). Is it making sense now??? Here we go again folks! Thank you Rosemary Scapicchio You are a credit to the profession. Defense Diaries Justice Served Carol Erskineshow more

MullenLaw

2,435 subscribers

Teilen Herunterladen