WASHINGTON - s4story -- For several reasons, the odds that Lindsay Clancy will be convicted in any retrial are very small, says law professor John Banzhaf.

First, it appears that - despite a strong closing argument by the prosecution - only 1 out of 12 jurors was willing to vote to convict.

So, unless there are some very dramatic changes, it appears that only 1 out of the 12 jurors was -or would be - willing to convict her.

Thus the odds that all 12 jurors would vote to convict are about equal to the odds that the first 12 cards in a large dealing shoe, of the type used for dealing blackjack, would all be the same (e.g. an ace).

More precisely, the odds that all 12 jurors in a new jury would vote to convict is (1/12) X (1/12) X (1/12) X (1/12)  . . twelve different times; which is about equal to 10 to the minus 13th power.

More on S For Story

• Michelle Ian Releases New Horror Suspense Thriller - Shadows Are Falling
• HydroExcavation.com Relaunches With Exclusive Local Service Areas and Dedicated Hydrovac Manufacturer Directory
• Sky Quarry Enters a Powerful New Chapter: Refinery Restart Emminent, Nevada Oil Initiative and Visibility Put (NAS DAQ: SKYQ) in the Spotlight
• OneVizion Launches Vera AI, Bringing Connected Operational Context to Infrastructure Teams
• P-Wave Press Announces Pushing the Wave 2025 by L.A. Davenport

Second, since a juror should vote to convict only if he believes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Clancy was not suffering from overwhelming postpartum psychosis when she killed her children, and at least one of the several well credentialed doctors testified that she was some reasonable doubt would obviously remain.  Prof Banzhaf offers the following example.

Mr. Patient, after suffering a devastating medical emergency, is rushed a hospital where he is examined by 4 doctors.  Three tell him he must immediately undergo an operation utilizing the Smith procedure or die.  But the fourth doctor says only an operation utilizing the Jones procedure will save his life.

Since Mr. Patient knows no more about his disease than a juror in the Clancy trial would know about postpartum psychosis, and therefore neither can use reason, logic, experience, etc. to make a decision, each must rely upon what the doctors say.

More on S For Story

• DONGSHENG Titanium Recycling: Promoting a Closed-Loop Cycle for High-End Titanium Materials
• Rogue Fae Brings the Prophecy of a Fae Trilogy to an Epic Conclusion
• New Book Brings Decades of Clinical Research to the Addiction Recovery Crisis
• French Camp Academy Releases New Video Inviting Individuals to Consider a Life of Service
• Casa Carlini Introduces AI-Powered Chat Support for Website Visitors

In this analogous situation, although Mr. Patient probably will believe the 3 doctors and choose the Smith procedure, he will obviously has some lingering doubt about whether the operation might kill him; a doubt which is obviously one which is reasonable because it is based upon the statement of an expert doctor.

Third, most of the prospective jurors have now seen that they can hold out for an acquittal or a conviction, based upon their own feelings, even if that conflicts with the law.  There is no punishment..

It's call "jury nullification" when all jurors do it, and "juror nullification" when less than all jurors decide to do it.

Considering the very strong emotions on both sides, it is quite likely that at least 1 juror would engage in juror nullification; which would prevent a conviction, predicts Banzhaf.

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