WASHINGTON - TelAve -- 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 TelAve News

• Baird Medical Turns Global Expansion Into Tangible Growth: N A S D A Q: BDMD Posts 25% Revenue Surge as U.S. and International Markets Accelerate
• Shelter Structures America makes European debut at TEMPOR EXPO 2026 in Fulda, Germany
• 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

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 TelAve News

• P-Wave Press Announces Pushing the Wave 2025 by L.A. Davenport
• DONGSHENG Titanium Recycling: Promoting a Closed-Loop Cycle for High-End Titanium Materials
• French Camp Academy Releases New Video Inviting Individuals to Consider a Life of Service
• LET US READ Documentary on Dyslexia and Literacy to Screen at TCL Chinese 6 in Hollywood
• Defense & Space Strategy Strengthens as New Leadership Builds on NASA Results and Expanding Multi-Orbit Opportunities for Ascent Solar Technologies

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