Card #107: Trial Day 27 complete · foreperson reports juror-instruction dispute; removal denied
Canonical URL: https://lindsay.conspirograph.com/topic/unresolved-questions/card/277
A foreperson note alleged one juror was not following the reasonable-doubt instruction. The judge questioned jurors privately, reread the instruction, denied removal, and dismissed the panel without a verdict.
[VERIFIED FACT] On the sixth deliberation day, another jury communication prompted Judge William Sullivan to question jurors individually in private and then reread the reasonable-doubt instruction to the full panel. [DISPUTED CLAIM] As described in open court by defense attorney Kevin Reddington, the foreperson’s note alleged that one juror would not follow the court’s reasonable-doubt instruction. The note was not read publicly in full, the juror was not publicly identified, and the allegation was not established as misconduct. [VERIFIED FACT] Reddington asked Sullivan to remove the juror; prosecutor Jennifer Sprague opposed further action, saying the individual inquiries and renewed instruction were sufficient. Sullivan denied removal, explaining that he would not side with one side of deliberations and that jurors had sworn they could follow his instructions. [VERIFIED FACT] Jurors deliberated briefly afterward and were dismissed shortly after 4 p.m. without a verdict or mistrial. They were ordered to return Friday, September 4, at 9 a.m. [UNKNOWN] The communication does not establish the numerical split, the disputed charge or issue, which outcome the reported juror favored, or whether any juror actually disregarded the law. [UNKNOWN] The jury dispute adds no merits evidence about staging or participation by Patrick Clancy, Rachel Danis, or any third party.
Links
Topic: Unresolved Questions. Comments: 0.