https://x.com/themissylerch/status/2098931569482145845?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
" Kevin Reddington’s wife… By publicly branding the holdout juror a "criminal" over a dismissed charge, Debbie Reddington has escalated this situation from an ethical breach into defamation per se and potential malicious harassment. [1, 2] This exact conduct carries catastrophic legal and professional consequences: 1. Defamation "Per Se" Liability for the Spouse Calling someone a criminal when their charge was dismissed is one of the clearest examples of online defamation. •False Statements of Fact: Legally, an individual is innocent until proven guilty. Labeling someone a "criminal" based on a dismissed domestic incident is a false statement of fact.[1, 2] •Defamation Per Se: Under Massachusetts law, falsely accusing someone of a crime is automatically considered "defamation per se." This means the juror does not even have to prove financial loss to win a civil lawsuit against her; the harm to their reputation is legally presumed. 2. Escalation of the State Bar Investigation into Kevin Reddington Her tweet makes it incredibly difficult for defense attorney Kevin Reddington to distance himself from the public mob targeting this juror. [1, 2] •Did he provide the court records? The Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers will aggressively investigate how his wife obtained background or court details about an impounded juror. If Reddington pulled those records via his law office and handed them to his wife to fuel a public smear campaign, he faces immediate disciplinary suspension or disbarment. [1, 2] •Bypassing Restraint Guidelines: Legal scholars like Jonathan Turley have already publicly rebuked Reddington for fueling public rage against the juror. His wife's actions look like a coordinated effort to destroy the juror's life as retribution for blocking a "not guilty by reason of insanity" acquittal. [1, 2, 3] 3. Disastrous Legal Precedent for the Lindsay Clancy Case Because a mistrial was declared, the Lindsay Clancy case is currently in limbo while the judge considers post-trial motions. [1, 2] •Poisoning the Next Jury Pool: If the Plymouth County District Attorney decides to retry Clancy, the prosecution can present these tweets to Judge William Sullivan as evidence that the defense team is actively trying to poison future jury pools by intimidating anyone who dares to vote guilty. [1, 2] •Sanctions: The judge can issue severe sanctions against Kevin Reddington's defense, including gag orders, heavy fines, or even restricting how the defense selects jurors in the next round. [1]"
https://x.com/ginamilan_/status/2098599402554228881?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"I’M SORRY, BUT WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE?! The wife of Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer is publicly going on social media and saying this kind of crap. SHE’S THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY’S WIFE. The judge should have put a GAG ORDER on every single person connected to this trial, including family members of anyone directly involved. There need to be boundaries, professionalism, and accountability when people connected to a criminal trial use social media to keep fueling the chaos. WHERE IS THE ETHICS IN ALL OF THIS?!"
https://x.com/mike5627/status/2098845722233950374?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"Juror Kellie "True Crime" Farina: how the bleep did she get on that jury? How the bleep did the prosecution miss this in voir dire? Grok: on their dedicated Free Karen Read Facebook page "she (Farina) criticized investigators and prosecutors, and celebrated Read’s 2025 acquittal." The Mirror (below): "Farina's other social media activity shows that she had an interest in true crime and even joked about committing crimes that would land her on a television network specializing in true crime documentaries." This woman is disgusting. themirror.com/news/us-news/l"
https://x.com/mrdennisbyron/status/2098783743494197365?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
" Looks like the NBC Boston reporter who thought it was a smart idea to dox the lone Black holdout juror may now have a legal problem of his own. Massachusetts law appears to raise serious questions about whether that conduct crossed the line. Maybe researching the statute should’ve come before digging into the juror’s personal life. I’d imagine a good civil attorney will be taking a very close look at this. "
https://x.com/mabbe_8/status/2098504908316012669?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"We just learned something about the Lindsay Clancy jury that should make everyone reconsider the post-trial interviews. The lone holdout was a Black man in his 30s. In fact, he was the only Black juror in the room. Now go back and listen to how some of the other jurors have described him. He was “arrogant.” He wouldn't listen. He wouldn't accept what they were telling him. They questioned whether he understood the instructions and complained to the judge about him. There was ultimately an effort by the defense to have the lone dissenting juror removed. I'm not accusing these jurors of being overt racists. I'm asking a much more uncomfortable question: how much unconscious racial bias may have influenced the way an 11-person white majority perceived the one Black man who refused to agree with them? Would a white juror who stubbornly stood by his interpretation of the evidence have been described the same way? Would disagreement have been interpreted as an inability to understand? Would his unwillingness to be persuaded have been characterized as arrogance rather than conviction? And here's what makes this especially troubling: another juror has now said the holdout wasn't the only person unwilling to move and that there were “some big personalities” in that room. Yet after the mistrial, he became the villain of the story. Gayle King's reaction when she learned he was the only Black juror was immediate: she needed a moment to process it. So do I. For days we've heard that this man wouldn't listen to the other 11 jurors. Maybe we should also be asking whether the other 11 jurors were willing to listen to him."
Maybe the white women on the jury were unaware that black voices matter and should have listened to him.
https://x.com/richardgraziul/status/2098541722493919585?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
" Rights of a juror in Boston: Using a juror’s identity or personal information to intimidate, harass, threaten, mislead, or retaliate against the juror (or their family) is a felony under G.L. c. 268, § 13B (intimidation of a juror). This covers both during and after a trial if the intent is to interfere with or punish participation in the proceeding. Penalty (standard case): • Up to 10 years in state prison, or • Up to 2½ years in a house of correction, and/or • Fine of $1,000–$5,000. If the underlying case involved a crime punishable by life imprisonment, the maximum prison term rises to 20 years. I don’t know how ABC Boston or people on X posting about the juror isn’t violating the law?"
No comments:
Post a Comment