I think that's what it was, basically the jury forewoman sent a note to the judge where she complained that one of her fellow, male, jurors, had admitted he had doubts, but still did not vote to acquit Clancy. In her view this was not applying the guidelines which the judge had provided. Remember, in Massachusetts, this is one of the few places in the world, where if you claim Post Partum Psychosis the prosecution then has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she had the capacity to act in accordance with laws. It's bizarre, normally this burden is reversed, the defendant has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not have this capacity. In any event, evidence shows that those who succeed in the insanity defence end up serving just as long as normal defendants, usually. It would not make much of a difference.
Create an account or sign in to comment