I hadn't been paying a super amount of attention to the Lindsay Clancy trial. I just thought it was a tragic situation. But it had been going on for nearly six weeks, so impossible not to read some things about it. I thought this article on the America site was good. The title sums it up :
We are expecting too much from the Lindsay Clancy trial - America Magazine
And I think it is true that we are expecting too much from the trial, if the aim is perfect justice.
"On Aug. 20, when Lindsay Clancy’s former mother-in-law Sue Clancy took the witness stand, Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham asked her if she was aware that murder is a mortal sin in the Catholic Church.Judge William Sullivan moved swiftly to strike the reference from the record, but I almost wish he would have let Ms. Buckingham continue. What line of questioning was she pursuing here? It left me considering what God asks of us in the face of such tragedy, what the law requires and where it falls short. "
"Lindsay Clancy is the 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse who is accused of strangling and killing her three young children, Cora, Dawson and Callan, in the family’s Massachusetts home on Jan. 24, 2023. Her defense argues that she is not criminally responsible for the deaths because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time they occurred."
"...I do not typically pay much attention to high-profile court cases as they are playing out. I much prefer to wait a few months for the talking heads on an episode of “Dateline” or “20/20” to neatly summarize the whole thing for me, offering a tidy conclusion. But if you are on social media at all, you will know how hard it is to ignore the Lindsay Clancy case. "
Eventually, it was her iPhone notes that hooked me.“I’m going to try my best today” I’m sad and depressed because I am not able to parent my third child like my first,” Ms. Clancy wrote. “I want to be able to give him all the love he deserves…I’m going to try my best today…I’m terrified of something happening to my kids or doing something wrong to mess up their development.”
"The fact that Ms. Clancy, who had given birth to Callan the previous May, was in the throes of a profound mental health crisis at the time of the murders is disputed by no one—not even the prosecution. Accordingly, Ms. Clancy’s defense has acknowledged that she was, in fact, the person to commit these murders."
"The question the trial seeks to answer is this: Is she criminally responsible for them? But the questions raised by Ms. Clancy’s life and actions are much broader. ...The prominence of the trial has meant that many people, especially mothers, have been forced to grapple with what the trial cannot solve. Questions of mental health and motherhood, good and evil, sickness, sadness. It was hard for me to sleep the first night after I read those testimonies. I understood why I had been trying to keep my distance: Lindsay Clancy reminds me of myself in more ways than I care to think about. I have never experienced intrusive thoughts about harming my children, but I do have a great deal of experience with intrusive thoughts in general, ones I have no intention of, or desire to, act upon. But it can be hard not to feel overwhelmed by them. I have lain awake, Ms. Clancy’s pathetic, optimistic words swirling in my head: “I’m going to try my best today.”
"...I know what it is like to face your day with nothing but an iPhone folder full of hopeful affirmations and a hope that today—please, God—when I tell someone “I’m okay,” I mean it. I know what it’s like to love so hard, and to fail."
"...But the conversation is polarized. On the other side, innumerable social media posts have been made with the supposed “hot take” that anyone who kills a child, no matter what the reason, needs to go to jail. "
"...So is Lindsay Clancy sick, or a monster? The ferocity of public opinion on this trial represents our collective inability to hold two truths at once: that people can sin, sometimes even terribly, and that people can still contain good."
"...In the courtroom, the law is all that matters, and the law is conveniently explicit. Arguing a court case is straightforward and falls within specific parameters. But broader concepts like good and evil are frustratingly gray, and discerning them calls for employing virtues like compassion, patience and charity."
"...However the jury decides this case, the opposite side will say that the justice system is broken. I’m not sure they are wrong. I don’t know what earthly justice is possible for Cora, Dawson and Callen. I don’t know what legal justice looks like for Lindsay Clancy. But I know that none of them will receive true justice from any decision handed down by a jury of human beings."
"...When Sue Clancy left the stand, she exited the courtroom through the main aisle, passing by the defense table. As she did, she looked straight at her former daughter-in-law. The nod that she gave was brief and her gaze unsmiling, but the meaning of both was unmistakable: recognition. Something tells me that Sue Clancy, a practicing Catholic, knows what a mortal sin is. She knows that such sin separates us from God and one another. And she knows God can forgive it."
Post partum mental illness is an out-of-the-ordinary situation, most people don't experience it to this degree of severity. But everyone knows someone who has experienced it, at least to a degree. I was fortunate that I didn't experience it after the birth of our children. Just run of the mill fatigue and bodily healing. But it turns out that I did know someone who had post partum depression severely. The relative who was my godmother had it with her children, and with her third required a short hospitalization. My mom didn't tell me about it until I was an adult. I don't know if she thought I would think less of our relative, or what. But she did say that the doctors advised the couple that they should not attempt another pregnancy. They didn't. And Mom said to me, "I'd better not hear anyone say that birth control is a sin in a situation like that." It should be noted that the children in most of these situations were loved and wanted, it was just an overwhelming mental crash that occurred afterwards.
Comments on social media have been pretty unsparing, which is maybe understandable. But it isn't true that if the final verdict would end up being "not guilty by reason of insanity", she would be getting off scot free. She is paralyzed from the waist down. She will likely have to be in some type of care facility for the rest of her life, the verdict notwithstanding. There is no such thing as scot free in this case..
I didn’t follow the case. So I just read up a bit about it. The only conclusion I can draw is that it was a tragedy. I can’t judge and wouldn’t have wanted to be on the jury. My heart hurts for what the children went through and for the husband/father. How is he doing? How is he surviving this? How will he ever be able to live a “ normal “ life? Pray for him. And for her. The woman will suffer for the rest of her life too. The paralysis is the least of it for her. She has to live with the knowledge of what she did, whether it was premeditated or from a psychotic break.
ReplyDeleteWhen people snap, they do bad things. Sometimes they kill people. Neither courts nor the mental health profession can adequately explain why.
ReplyDeleteThe American legal system is punishment-oriented. Is punishment justice? Does it rehabilitate? Does it make society safer? Does it help victims and their families?
I don't think we know that, either.
It seems to me that we have increased the expectations that are placed on new mothers since I had kids. I don't know if that has increased the incidence of postpartum depression, but it hasn't helped. Of course our youngest is 48 now, so looking at things from a distance. But if I were giving birth now I would want to avoid doing it in a hospital designated "baby friendly":
ReplyDeletehttps://www.romper.com/p/the-failure-of-baby-friendly-initiatives-19374870.
Thanks for the link.
DeleteMy thought after reading it is that post-partum depression is different from post-partum pressure to live up to other people's idea of mothering.
PPD eases up after some months. People telling women how to parent never lets up.
"People telling women how to parent never lets up."
DeleteUnfortunately I think you are right about that!
I haven't paid too much attention, but from what I do know, it seems to me nothing was to be gained from having a trial. Google tells us "[I]n Massachusetts, legal insanity—referred to in court as a 'lack of criminal responsibility'—means a person's mental disease or defect prevents them from understanding the wrongfulness of their conduct or from conforming their behavior to the requirements of the law." There may be cases in which a jury can decide such matters, but to me, this seems not to be one of them. In a case like this, how in the world can a jury know?
ReplyDeletePresumably Lindsay Clancy is going to be under psychiatric care for the rest of her life. Let the doctors decide.
When a person has strangled their 3 children (5 yrs, 3 yrs, and 8 mos), the magnitude of the action is so great that a legal finding of guilt or innocence doesn't really change much of anything.
"...the magnitude of the action is so great that a legal finding of guilt or innocence doesn't really change much of anything."
DeleteI have to pretty much agree with that.
I know it’s not kosher Catholic, and it could be a slippery slope to who knows where, but should a person with this tendency be permitted to become pregnant again or, instead, undergo voluntary or involuntary tubal ligation? Would the indirect effect rule apply? They’re trying to prevent a dangerous psychiatric illness, not pregnancy.
ReplyDeleteIt should not be involuntary sterilization, as was done to many black women and others in an earlier era. It could be offered but it would be up to her. Not sure what indirect effect is, but you seem to imply that you think it’s a sin. Tubal ligation is a common medical procedure and it is not sinful. However, since it is likely that she may spend the rest of her life in a facility - prison or mental institution. People do get pregnant in those places - unfortunately rape sometimes happens in prisons and mental hospitals, and preventing a possible future pregnancy would be a good idea, but only if she agrees to it.
DeleteYeah, I thought abt this, too, irrespective of what the Church says.
DeleteBut the "prevent a dangerous illness" argument works only if it's crystal clear that the killings were the result of PPD, not a cluster of other mental illnesses or the psychiatric treatment itself, which is being argued by Clancy in a different lawsuit.
In cases involving sex criminals, reversible chemical castration is allowed in several states. Chemical castration may be voluntary or involuntary. But nowhere is permanent surgical castration allowed. So the law might allow birth control pills for someone with violent PPD, but not irreversible sterilization.
However, women don't necessarily have PPD after every pregnancy. According to the Mayo Clinic, a woman with PPD is 30 to 70 percent likely to have it again. So that's a pretty big odds spread.
I'm not in favor of involuntary sterilization. But there are at least two conditions in pregnancy or postpartum that I don't know why anyone in their right mind would risk another pregnancy (of course we aren't talking about people in their right mind!). The two conditions are pospartum depression (or psychosis), and hyperemesis gravidarum.
DeleteWith Lindsay Clancy, there's no way she'll begin in any position to get pregnant again. If there is anyone with her kind of history who is crazy enough to expose herself to pregnancy, social services basically needs to be on hand to catch the baby when it is born.
"If there is anyone with her kind of history who is crazy enough to expose herself to pregnancy, social services basically needs to be on hand to catch the baby when it is born."
DeleteIt doesn't work that way, as we learned when we were looking at adopting an older child. You can have children permanently removed from your custody, but if you later on go have other children in different circumstances, the law cannot summarily take them away unless you're incarcerated. The law can only intervene if the new children are endangered or harmed.
I think there are many instances where prudent people would not risk even one pregnancy, at least not without some genetic testing. My step-Grampa's family had a history of Huntington's. Women with MPN cancers like mine often have a history of miscarriage.
Had I known I was carrying that genetic mutation, I would not have tried for a biological child. I do not regret having a tubal after The Boy was born. But it's a grave sin, so back to the Episcopalians I went!
Jean, it’s NOT a grave sin. Not to God anyway. At least the Episcopalians are rational enough to acknowledge that. Modern methods of birth control, including sterilization, are not sinful. But the Anglicans are not arrogant enough to claim infallibility for themselves either.
Delete. What was sinful was the behind the scenes lobbying of Paul Vi undertaken to persuade him to not approve the change recommended by an overwhelming majority of the members of the Birth Control Commission. But the conservatives in the Vatican led by Cardinal Ottaviani convinced Paul VI that changing it would weaken the church’s claims to infallibility even though changing the teaching was the right and honest thing to do. Andrew Greeley believed that this dishonest move and the resulting decision to continue declaring contraception to be a sin was the beginning of the exodus of millions of Catholics. Millions of married Catholics knew the teaching was wrong, so how could they still trust the church’s teachings on other things?
The Birth Control ,Commission actually did heed John Cardinal Newman’s advice to consult the faithful on matters of doctrine, resulting in a complete change in the bishops’ opinions from the first meeting to the final. They actually listened to those who live the vocation of marriage. So almost all of the bishops voted for the change. But the conservatives, fearful that an honest change would weaken papal authority, convinced the pope to reject the findings of the Commission. There is a reason that 95% of Catholics use modern birth control during their marriages and go to communion with a clear conscience. . It’s called the Sensus Fidelium. Catholics are allowed to follow their informed consciences and those who use modern contraception do so. As pointed out during the testimonies given to the Commission, the rhythm method ( now NFP) often harmed marriages by imposing an unnatural way of living on married couples, often harming the relationship.
I don't know if Church teaching about birth control is wrong or not. But I'm not going to play primacy of conscience games to make loopholes for myself. Felt more honest to me to stay out of the Communion line until such time as I could accept the rules and feel penitent about breaking them. And I haven't.
DeleteJean, you followed your conscience in making your choice as you should.. I did too, especially after spending an incredible amount of time - probably several hundred hours — researching the issue, tracing the teachings back- informing my conscience. When I finished I was so dismayed by what I learned I l stopped going to mass because I wasn’t sure I could stay in this church. Some are attracted y black and white, rules ordered religion. I a, not one of them. It was only after a priest theologian educated me about primacy of conscience that I stayed. Without primacy of conscience we would be little more than robots, unthinking rules followers allowing others to tell us what to do instead of using our own God- given minds and consciences. It’s a sin not to use these gifts that God gave us. Catholic history has many examples of wrong church teachings. It has many examples of those who were declared heretics and later exonerated and even canonized. Joan of Arc may be the most famous of these.. Primacy of conscience is not a loophole for playing games, even if it seems that way to you. Which is sad. It is one of the most important teaching of the Church.
DeleteRereading this doesn’t come across the way I intended. Your conscience guided you, I have no idea how much you studied the teaching. You also may have spent time on it as I did but concluded that you would follow the official teaching in good conscience.
DeleteI understand and respect you for thinking through your position and for researching the Church's history on this topic. I made peace with my own decision long ago, and I ought not to have brought it up in my comment.
DeleteNo, I have no problem with sterilization or birth control. The nice thing about being unmarried is that I don't have to worry about that stuff or make those moral decisions. I guess I could have become a priest but telling people what to do in their bedrooms is something else I'm more than happy to have avoided.. I'm afraid that were in a situation of severe ecological overshoot.. Some scientists think this is a more comprehensive term than climate change. alone and a better description of our predicament. When the treasure trove of fossil fuel energy is exhausted, we will not be able to grow food, harvest food and move food like we have for the past hundred years. And our planet will be not as friendly because of the CO2. The Great Femtobrain's unnecessary foolish war will soon give us a preview of what's to come. What the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians might be an even more accurate depiction of the future. We need to downsize rapidly to reduce the suffering and disruption. I'm glad I'm out of the loop on this. Some people say fusion plus renewables may save us. I hope they're right. Right now solar panels are being made using fossil fuels at many steps in the process. But bottom line is that we are biological organisms that can increase our population exponentially and our resources don't. Am I straying off topic or is this woman's madness or sin just the microcosm reflecting the macrocosm.
DeleteNope, I get it.
DeleteLotta people going crazy worldwide. There's already a copycat killer in Illinois who hung her toddler and tried to commit suicide after obsessing over the Lindsay Clancy case.
And never mind the crazy clubs of Brexits, AfD, MAGAs, accelerationists, Christian Nationalists, Islamicists, Zionists, tech bros, cyborg wannabes buying Meta glasses, incels, trad wives, chem trail conspiracists, flat earthers, etc.
We're living in the first chapters of a Cory Doctorow novel.
Believe me, it crosses my mind 10 times a day why I'm bothering to take my chemo pills and have cardiac surgery next week just to keep living in this stew of insanity. Mostly to see the demise of Trump and to vote out MAGAs in November.
You may be right, Stanley, and you may not. As someone trained in economics, I am always reminded of how wrong Malthus was in his predictions. We can’t foresee the future nor what technology may come up with. Or maybe AI😏. Ending the exponential growth in population would be wise, it seems regardless of what technology might come up with down the road. My quarrel with the celibate hierarchy is that they.jump to theological conclusions on contraception based on pagan philosophy ( natural law) and early Christian thinkers ( who based their ideas on pagan philosophy). If they confined it to intellectual musings, fine, but calling a morally neutral medical advance a mortal sin is just wrong. It can be used for bad reasons, or for good, just like many other things. Food is a morally neutral necessity that can help or harm. Gluttony is a sin, one that the majority of bishops and cardinals might reflect on. The teaching on contraception causes genuine harm to people and society. Institutional sin in the church has existed throughout its history and caused tremendous harm at times. It’s long overdue for the church to issue a Mea culpa.
DeleteAnne, Malthus didn’t foresee the harnessing of fossil fuels just like Paul Ehrlich didn’t foresee the Green Revolution. But, in both cases, there’s a reliance on a finite and climate damaging resource. They are temporary reprieves. The question is can solar and wind power provide enough power to produce wind and solar power devices. Using fossil fuels at present to produce wind and power is a good investment of its energy because those devices will continue to produce power for another twenty years or more. Maybe fossil fuels could eventually be replaced by fusion which would be used to produce wind and solar devices. But I’m a pessimistic engineer. Optimistic engineering leads to space shuttle disasters and billionaires dying one mile underwater though you may know how I feel about billionaires.
DeleteBut what might come that we don’t foresee now?
DeleteThe only possibility is fusion power. And, in the end, the laws of thermodynamics will not be suspended. They are stringent. Climate change will even affect the efficiency of any power plant, coal, gas, oil, nuclear or fusion. The efficiency depends on how well you can cool them. As the temperature of the earth increases, the cooling water isn’t so cool, so efficiency drops. Bottom line, we’ll have to give up some of our luxuries if we want to eat.
DeleteAnd now in News So Weird You Couldn't Make It Up:
ReplyDeleteClancy's lawyer, who must know better, is asking Trump to pardon her, though he has no power to intervene in state trials.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/08/lindsay-clancy-mistrial-lawyer-appeal-trump-pardon
Apparently, he said in a subsequent interview that he is hoping Trump will lean on the prosecutor not to retry her. He wants a plea deal for her.
DeleteI don't think Trump has any motivation whatever to get involved unless a plea deal would lead to some kind of stiff punishment to make the religious nuts who vote for him happy. They are not buying PPP or PPD. They see her as a tool of Satan and want to see her locked up forever if not given the death penalty.
DeleteInteresting how they go Salem Witch Trial whenever women get accused of something horrible. They rarely jabber about demonic forces when men slaughter their families.
"They are not buying PPP or PPD. They see her as a tool of Satan and want to see her locked up forever if not given the death penalty."
DeleteJean, yes. I have been seeing a lot of those kind of comments. People can agree that it is a tragic, difficult situation, in which perfect justice is likely not possible. But some people go full-on witch hunt.
If what I read is true, 11 of the 12 jurors were ready to acquit her on the strength of the post-partum depression evidence. One holdout apparently prevented that verdict.
ReplyDeleteI admit I was surprised. Maybe knowledge of, and sympathy for, sufferers of post-partum depression has gone broader and deeper in Americans' consciousnesses than I had suspected. But a lawyer friend told me that Massachusetts' law is the opposite of what prevails in Illinois and other states: in Massachusestts, if a person pleads not guilty by reason of insanity (or whatever the correct phrasing is under MA law), it is the prosecutors' burden to prove that she wasn't mentally ill at the time of the crime.
I've observed post-partum depression up-close, so I'd like to think I get it. That said, it would take a lot of convincing for me to conclude that she had no moral culpability for what she did.
The way I understand it her condition crossed over the line between postpartum depression and full on psychosis. More resembling something like schizophrenia. Are there gradations between "no" moral culpability, and "full" moral culpability? I don't know.
DeleteIt's weird how this murder has grabbed the public spotlight. But unfortunately it is far from the only time something like this has ever happened. But maybe it is notable because incidents like this are rare (thankfully).
Makes me think of case in our town years ago, in which a mother of young children seemingly vanished off the face of the earth. It came out later, after her death, that she had assumed another identity and made a new life in a distant city.. Did she do a disappearing act because she was afraid of something she might do? We'll never know.
Diagnosing mental illness is way above my pay grade, and it's a very inexact science. As Jim points out, states have a variety of legal standards and rules revolving around insanity pleas.
DeleteI don't think mental illness or retardation should be a factor in guilt or innocence in murder trials. Mental competence, to the extent that psychiatrists can determine it, should be a factor in the sentencing phase, and judges should have a lot of latitude re prison or involuntary commitment.
Lindsay Clancy, if she is not retried or a plea deal is not reached, would walk free. Slight chance, but it's there.
But is there any such thing as walking free if you are paralyzed from the waist down and will likely have to be in a care facility?
DeleteShe would have choices about where to live and what drugs the doctors feed her.
DeleteIt's hard for me to fathom that she's a danger to anyone, especially if her injuries have made her unable to have kids.
I'm not high on punishment for its own sake, though lots of other people like it for various reasons.
I know little about mental illness. But it seems to me that a typical middle class mom of three, a nurse, who strangles her children and then jumps out a window is providing prima facie evidence of severe mental illness. I don’t think moral culpability actually enters in to it. As to what next— prison or mental hospital—, I also can’t answer that.
DeleteI understand what you're saying. But most courts have strict requirements that a panel of psychiatrists have to diagnose a mental illness from the DSM that interferes with the accused's ability to grasp reality or know right from wrong.
DeletePPD is kind of on trial in the Clancy case: Is it actually one of the mental illnesses that would meet that standard?
What courts do if a defendant is found to be insane varies. In Michigan, someone can be found incompetent to stand trial. And defendants might plead "guilty but insane" and "not guilty by reason of insanity." I believe that in the first case, you go to prison but are mandated mental health treatment, such as it is. In the second case, you go to a mental hospital. Not too many of those hospitals for the criminally insane any more, and they most run like prisons.
You don't see insanity pleas very often here because it's too hard for the defense to prove. The Crumbley kid who shot up his school here when he was 14 was severely depressed and begging his parents for help. His parents, who were convicted for providing the gun, were clearly negligent.
But none of the parental neglect or psychological issues were factored into the sentencing. The kid plead guilty, and they sent him to prison for life without parole.
Sorry for going wonky here. My former boyfriend up north was a lawyer.
The 17 1/2 yo boy who shot and killed my niece and her husband never went to trial. His lawyers dragged it out for years. We believe the plea was to be not guilty due to insanity. The trial was originally delayed for 18 months because he had shot himself in the head after killing my niece and husband. After that injury was fairly healed they had to determine competence to stand trial. Then a few more delays. My sister (whose daughter was one of the victims) was a lawyer and she was in incredibly frustrated by the process, especially since the county kept changing prosecutors, who then changed their strategy. She died before a trial occurred. He had been severely injured by his attempt to commit suicide when he heard the cops coming in the house and he died in his prison cell of after effects of that injury a month before his most recently scheduled trial date.
DeleteHe had a long history of emotional illness, dating from childhood. He had psychiatric and psychological assessments, a police record ( he tortured animals as a young teen), special school programs, and a lot of other red flags.
Was he insane? I don’t know.
I thought this was an interesting discussion of legal insanity:
Deletescienceinsights.org/what-is-clinical-insanity-legal-term-not-a-diagnosis/
Thanks Katherine. That’s a very interesting and informative article.
Delete"Are there gradations between "no" moral culpability, and "full" moral culpability?"
DeleteYes. In the legal sphere, this is one reason that judges traditionally have some latitude in sentencing those found guilty.
According to my friend, confidant and guru Google Gemini, there is an important distinction between postpartum depression, which many mothers have experienced to varying degrees (10%-15% of new moms, which apparently is thought to represent an undercount of reality), and postpartum psychosis (PPP), which is comparatively rare (experienced by one in 1,000 moms) and is characterized as "a severe psychiatric emergency involving a total break from reality, delusions and hallucinations".
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, the prosecution and the defense offered dueling expert witnesses on the question of whether what Clancy was suffering was truly PPP.
Some jury trials ask 12 men and women from everyday walks of life to evaluate and decide fairly straightforward questions of fact (did the young man on trial shoot the store clerk during the holdup?). Some, like this one, ask them to make judgments about matters on which they can't be expected to have any deep knowledge or personal experience. I am sorry for them.
That's why I think that finding someone guilty or not, and then letting judges hold hearings in which defense and prosecution offer testimony on mitigating factors for the penalty phase makes more sense.
Delete“ Some, like this one, ask them to make judgments about matters on which they can't be expected to have any deep knowledge or personal experience. I am sorry for them.”.
DeleteSo do I. I would never want to be on a jury for a trial like Clancy. I once received a notification from the court that they were creating a pool of potential jurors for the trial of a fairly spectacular local murder. You could ask to not be included in the jury pool. I had preschoolers at the time and that was one of the acceptable reasons for asking to be removed. I was very glad to have not been involved with that trial. Capital punishment was still allowed then, so if I had been chosen for the jury they would have asked if I could support a penalty of capital punishment. If I said NO, the prosecutor would probably have asked the judge to dismiss me.
I served on a jury once for a civil trial (auto collision lawsuit), so nothing like the death penalty was on the table, but we were asked if we would feel comfortable awarding large sums of money. Whether any of the defendants had insurance company funding behind them wasn't revealed, so it was a good question. In the event, the amount we awarded was a small fraction of what the main plaintiff requested.
DeleteI served on a civil trial jury for a car-bicycle accident. Only 6 people on that jury. We weren’t asked about award money. The bicyclist was barely scratched - there were photos of bruises and scrapes - not even any stitches, so they were going with emotional trauma and nightmares as his main injuries. But we were asked about whether we bicycled very often. The bicyclist had been riding without a helmet, legal for adults, but he did not keep within the legal boundaries for riding on the road. The car driver tried to pass by moving left but he moved in front of her as she was returning back to the right lane. We found her innocent based on contributory negligence ( not all states have this apparently) on the part of the bicyclist who did not stay where he was supposed to be. A cop testified but wasn’t allowed to say if she had been charged. After it was over we learned she had not been charged. The cop did have a very clear diagram of the paths of the car and the bicycle that was very helpful. Our deliberations went into two days because we had one holdout. He didn’t like that the young woman driving was on her way to work from her boyfriend’s apartment, not her parents house, something her ambulance chasing attorney brought up. So she ran into a bicyclist? The holdout finally gave up. I was afraid we were going to have a third day of trying to convince the guy that his views of her morals were irrelevant. The lawyer for the bicyclist asked me after what had happened (we were on the elevator together). He had assumed that his client had won because it went over to another day, and that the debate was over the size of the award. I’m sure his client was disappointed that he didn’t get anything.
DeleteI was also called as a witness once. It was a very bad accident that left a 17 year old girl seriously injured and in a long term rehabilitation hospital. They had to get a machine to pry off the top of the car she was in to get her out. The car was totally mangled. I heard a few years later that she also had some brain damage and would never be normal again. It was just before high school graduation and she had college plans that were never realized. As a witness, I experienced how lawyers try to manipulate testimony. I was asked if I had actually seen the collision when it occurred. I hadn’t - I didn’t look until a moment after the crash, which sent both cars spinning out of control. So I said, No, I hadn’t seen the collision but when I heard it - it sounded like an explosion- I looked. The people in the courtroom audibly reacted to my statement. The insurance company lawyer was visibly upset by my description of it sounding like an explosion and tried to lead me away from it. But that’s what it did sound like to me so he was out of luck. The insurance company was out of luck because his client was speeding about 25 mph over the limit on a two lane road without shoulders and poor line of sight visibility. . The family of the girl needed the money to help pay for the rehab hospital for their daughter.
DeleteFor the trial for which I was impanelled on the jury, the main plaintiff was an immigrant from Italy with a thick accent. He lived in a suburb in this area with a big ethnic Italian population. His primary-care doctor also was an Italian immigrant. One of the jurors couldn't see past the fact that the plaintiff and his doctor spoke with such heavy accents; I don't know that "racist" is the right term for what he was, but he was biased against immigrants and people for whom English isn't a first language. He wasn't pleasant to be with in the jury room. But when it was time for deliberations, our holdout was a senior citizen who thought that everything the plaintiff, his witnesses and his attorney said was BS, just because he thinks that's how most people are in the world (i.e. everyone lies for financial gain). Luckily for the rest of us, he caved after a brief round of haranguing by the rest of us.
DeleteAnne, I know what you mean about crashes that sound like bombs exploding. We had one down the street earlier this week. It's a frequent-accident intersection - possibly the worst in our suburb for accidents. I work from home in a room that fronts the street so I hear the collisions down the block but never actually see them. The one that happened earlier this week was the loudest I had ever heard. I chatted with the neighbors who live in the corner. They tell me there is at least one colission a week there.
DeleteJuror in trial of juvenile who broke into a shed and went joyriding on a riding mower. The case the prosecutor presented was incoherent and so was the testimony from the injured party, an elderly lady who kept crying and yelling about how we had to teach kids a lesson, but it wasn't at all clear that she could ID the defendant. We spent an hour just trying to piece together what we thought happened. We all agreed the kid looked like a little shit, but we couldn't convict based on what was presented.
DeleteLol! Joyriding on a riding mower sounds like an oxymoron.
DeleteA car crash does sound like an explosion. Years ago a drunk hit one of our cars on New Years Eve (it was parked on the curb and no one was in it). The noise woke us up and my husband went out to investigate. The guy was spinning his wheels trying to get away, but he had damaged his own vehicle and it wouldn't move. He was cited for driving under the influence. Our car was totaled, but it was old, and I think we got $300.from insurance.
DeleteI don't even know how a lawnmower joyride gets to court, honestly. My guess is that this was not the kid's first offense, but that was not part of the info we got.
Delete