The outcome of Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial may hinge on how the jurors understand the concept of reasonable doubt. But the term is “not easily defined,” as the judge explained to the deadlocked group on Thursday.
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a high bar — in fact, it is the highest burden of proof within the United States’ legal system. It means prosecutors must make jurors reasonably certain that the defendant is responsible for the crime.
Still, there is some wiggle room. Judge William Sullivan, who is presiding over the Clancy trial, told jurors that “proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, for everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.”
Ms. Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, has argued that she was not criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children because she was in the throes of postpartum psychosis when she strangled them with exercise bands in 2023.
The prosecutors must show not only that Ms. Clancy killed the children — which she does not deny — but also that she was in control of her actions and could tell right from wrong.
On Thursday, the jurors told the judge that they were at an impasse, with one person at odds with all of the others. Ms. Clancy’s lawyer asked for that juror to be removed for failing to “listen to the law on reasonable doubt,” but his request was declined.
Instead, Judge Sullivan gave the jurors instructions on reasonable doubt and sent them back to the deliberation room.
Under Massachusetts law, judges cannot use their own words to explain reasonable doubt, said R. Michael Cassidy, a law professor at Boston College. That is why the judge read verbatim from instructions that were created by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 2015.
“The charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after you’ve compared and considered all of the evidence,” Judge Sullivan said, “you have in your minds an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, that the charge is true.”
“Moral certainty,” too, is a tough term to pin down.
“We’re not talking about scientific certainty,” Professor Cassidy said. “We’re talking about moral certainty, and that means an abiding conviction: as firmly convinced as you can be in everyday affairs in your life.”
It is up to the prosecution — not the defense — to meet that high standard of persuasion, as Judge Sullivan reminded the jurors on Thursday.
“If you evaluate all the evidence and you still have a reasonable doubt remaining,” he said, “the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be acquitted.”
The post How to Define the ‘Reasonable’ in Reasonable Doubt appeared first on New York Times.
