Single justice hears oral arguments over defense request for intervention
A single justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard brief oral arguments Friday on the defense request for emergency intervention.
The justice quickly adjourned the hearing to make a decision.
Clancy's attorney, Reddington, argued intervention is necessary to avoid a mistrial.
"It is also necessary to preserve the Defendant's right to a fair trial by unbiased jurors applying the law and to avoid violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments and Article 114, which makes mental illness a protected category," the defense motion stated.
The defense motion for emergency intervention was devoid of case law that would establish precedent for what Reddington is asking for. Instead he wants the state's highest court to step in to "preserve the integrity of the court system."
Reddington faulted the judge overseeing Clancy's trial, Sullivan. Â
"The Superior Court has abdicated its responsibility to ensure the integrity of the jury by refusing either to inquire further or to dismiss the juror who is refusing to consider doubt as the law states," Reddington's motion stated. Â
He also faulted the juror, saying their refusal to apply any doubts they have acknowledged during deliberations reflects "a bias against those who suffer from debilitating mental illness."
Prosecutors have argued Sullivan properly exercised his discretion to declare the mistrial after seven days of deadlock.
