There is also an important distinction about the alleged 11-1 jury split. Reddington has suggested that he believes the 11 jurors favor Clancy, but the court has not officially disclosed the jury’s actual votes.
Thursday began as the sixth day of jury deliberations, following two previous declarations that the jury was deadlocked. By approximately 3 p.m., after roughly 35 hours of deliberations, another jury note arrived. Judge Sullivan brought court back into session and proceeded to question all 12 jurors individually under oath. The questioning occurred at the sidebar, meaning viewers watching the livestream couldn’t hear the questions or answers.
Clancy was brought to the sidebar in her wheelchair while the jurors were questioned. ABC reported that prosecutors and defense attorneys were visibly disagreeing about what was happening. After questioning the jurors individually, Sullivan brought the entire jury back and delivered another instruction concerning reasonable doubt.
Judge Sullivan Reinforces Legal Instructions
Sullivan told them: “You are required to follow my instructions on the law as I gave them.” He reminded them that every defendant is presumed innocent and that prosecutors bear the burden of proving guilt. Sullivan told jurors, “I’ve told you that every person is presumed to be innocent until they are proved guilty and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.” The jury was then sent back to deliberate.
After the jury left the courtroom, Reddington said the foreperson’s note indicated one juror was refusing to follow Sullivan’s legal instructions. Reddington demanded that Sullivan remove that juror and replace the person with an alternate. His argument was essentially that this wasn’t simply a juror who viewed the evidence differently. According to Reddington, the juror “refuses to listen to the law.” Reddington told Judge Sullivan, “My motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt.”
Prosecutor Objects to Juror Removal
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague strongly disagreed. Her position was that the court couldn’t determine from the note which juror’s interpretation was correct without improperly intruding into confidential jury deliberations. Sprague said: “There’s no way to determine what the deliberations are, who’s correct, who’s incorrect, and nor should we attempt to.” Sullivan said. “I don’t feel that it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations. I don’t feel it’s appropriate for me to say, I agree with one juror or the 11.”
In other words, Sullivan was unwilling to remove someone simply because that juror appeared to be outnumbered 11-1. This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
