WASHINGTON - s4story -- Many people are angry that Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney criticized one of the jurors for seemingly refusing to follow the judge's instructions.

Similarly, many people are also angry that the single holdout juror refused to change his position even when the other 11 jurors pressured him to do so.

But neither the criminal defense attorney nor the sole holdout juror should be blamed or even criticized for their actions because each did exactly what the U.S. legal system expects of them, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf. . . .

So even if Reddington had gone much further than he actually did, the defense attorney was simply engaged in conduct which he believed might help his client by making such a holdout for conviction less likely in any subsequent retrial.

More on S For Story

• Canadian Tint Expo 2027: Why Every Window Tinter Should Compete in Niagara Falls on April 3rd & 4th
• History Matters - The Return of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, 1806
• Building a Diversified Healthcare Platform as Exosome Science, Telehealth, Diagnostics & Strategic Acquisitions Converge: NexTel Medical (OTCID: MAJI)
• Most Indiana Plane Crashes Happen Away from the State's Major Airports
• L2 Aviation Welcomes Jason Marshall as Vice President of Sales and Business Development

To do anything less would be to violate his legal obligation to put the interests of his client first and foremost above the interests of all others, says Banzhaf. . . .

A criminal defense attorney cannot serve two masters; which means that his all-encompassing duty is to do whatever he can to protect his client (within the boundaries of the law), and it cannot be tempered even very slightly by concerns for others. . . .

Similarly, the holdout juror was merely doing doing what has been legal for jurors to do since 1670; performing a function under and consistent with our deep rooted and constitutionally required practice of entrusting even the most difficult and complex medical decisions to 12 laymen. . . .

In short, jurors in a criminal trial are permitted - if not sometimes even expected - despite the judge's strong admonition, to completely disregard both the law and the facts, and to return a verdict based upon their own feelings as to what is fair, just, and appropriate in a specific case . . .

More on S For Story

• Mom Era, Still That Girl: Family Art Tees 25% Off
• Fashion vs. Fascism - Because Democracy Should Always Be In Style
• Two Groundbreaking Novels That Redefine Existence, Time, and Truth
• A Sip of Love Blends Persian Heritage, Spirituality & Divine Mystique
• Lee Gunn IV Shares Lessons From 40 Years in the Courtroom on PodNumbra Podcast

Although judges tell jurors that they must follow the law, this hasn't been true since 1670 when it was decided that jurors could no longer be punished for rendering an "incorrect verdict."

Since jurors cannot be punished if they vote contrary to what the judge tells them the law requires, and a defendant once acquitted by such a vote cannot be retried for the same offense, jurors unquestionably can refuse to vote to impose criminal responsibility even if they are convinced by the facts and the law that the defendant is guilty.

For example .  .

Similarly, because we insist upon entrusting important decisions to 12 laypeople who must decide unanimously, we must expect and accept that at least sometimes they will act in accordance with deeply help feelings.

http://banzhaf.net/   jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com   @profbanzhaf