WASHINGTON - TelAve -- 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 TelAve News

• Black Women Living With, and Impacted by, HIV Express Gratitude, Grief, Joy, and Resilience
• MainConcept Easy Video API Extends Full Transcoding to Arm and NETINT VPUs
• Cruxy shortlisted for two Private Equity Wire® US Awards 2026: Advisory Firm of the Year (Overall) & Value Creation Consulting Firm of the Year
• Lake Norman Philharmonic - Free Community Concert
• Amaris Mint® Confirms UK Availability of Swedish-Made BioBoost Daily Nutrition Range

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 TelAve News

• Sea Tales Strengthens U.S. Leadership Team as Retail Expansion Accelerates
• Patented Foodservice Products Company with Strong Gross Margins and Substantial Two-Year Revenue Growth Hits Market for $1.6 Million
• Robert DeMaio, Phinge CEO to Speak at 30th IIPLA 2026 on Securing IP, User Data & Digital Sovereignty via Verified App-less Tech. Attend the Live Q&A!
• Dividend Stacker Launches Free Calendar and Alerts for High-Yield ETF Payouts
• Paul Ohana - From Beverly Hills Salon Chair To Beauty Founder Celebrity Hair Expert

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