Ep. 1833 - Do Juries Still Work In Modern America?

**Matt Walsh** (0:00)
If you're starting to wonder if there's maybe something toxic in the water in Massachusetts, if you're beginning to feel the righteous anger of a colonial official in Salem circa 1692, then you should know at the very least that you're not alone. Far from it. Your sentiment is completely justified. It was just a year ago, you may remember, that a majority female jury in Massachusetts determined that a financial analyst named Karen Reed had somehow been framed for murder by about four or five dozen people, including first responders, forensic investigators, police officers, the medical examiner's office, prosecutors, even friends of her boyfriend who was the victim. The jury was apparently swayed by deranged TikTok theories that appealed overwhelmingly to women looking for some excitement in their lives. It was a very unseemly and disturbing display that played out all over the Internet. But if you're the optimistic type, it was easy to write off as a fluke. A rare case where an American jury was led astray by online brain rot on its way to reaching an extremely dubious not guilty verdict. But as the Lindsay Clancy jury, also in Massachusetts, it just so happens, approaches a week of deliberations without a verdict in the single most straightforward murder case imaginable, in a case where any sane juror would immediately return a verdict of guilty for first degree murder, then vote to send the woman to prison for the rest of her life. There's no denying that our jury system is actually compromised at a fundamental level. It's not simply the fact that two majority female juries in the same state are inclined to legalize premeditated homicide. It's also very obvious fact that millions of women all over the country are on board with this. If they were on the jury, they would do the exact same thing. They would happily subvert the criminal justice system in service of their own narcissism. We're seeing many other cases like this, although most of them don't get much attention. For example, you've probably have not heard the name of Heather Cushman, but late last year, Cushman, a 33-year-old Colorado woman, was found not guilty of stabbing her 60-year-old father to death in his home. She stabbed him 15 times after an argument, puncturing both of his lungs, butchering her father, essentially. Cushman claims self-defense, arguing that she somehow feared for her life as she was carving him up. And that defense might have been plausible on its face, except for the fact that she texted a friend on the night of the killing saying, I, quote, I effed up really bad. I'm so sorry. There was also evidence that Cushman chased her father throughout the home. She told the detectives that, quote, I just felt like an effing animal at that point. I'm pretty sure I bit him.
And there was forensic evidence showing that Cushman's injuries, quote, were not consistent with taking the knife from her father. And the more you read, the more it gets worse for her case, or so you would think. This is from the Loveland reporter, Harold, quote, After being arrested, Heather Cushman reportedly told police she and her father got into an argument that escalated into a physical fight before she stabbed him. During witness testimony, Loveland Police Department Sergeant Brad Templeman said 391 calls were made by or about Heather Cushman on the night of the incident. He said in the first call, Heather Cushman said she was suicidal and seeking mental health treatment at a hospital. The second was made by Heather Cushman's sister, in which she said Heather Cushman had stabbed their father. The third was another call made by Heather Cushman where she said she had stabbed her father. Now at the risk of understatement, none of this is remotely consistent with a claim of self-defense. She was obviously an unstable, violent woman who needed to be institutionalized, but the jury voted to acquit her anyway. She's free to walk the streets, walk next to you in the grocery store, sit next to you on the bus, as if she's done nothing wrong.
This was a case that did not cause TikTok hysteria at anywhere near the same degree as the Clancy trial. It wasn't everywhere on social media. Nevertheless, the jury decided to let a woman get away with killing someone in a decision so terrible that it basically amounted to jury nullification. Cushman claimed that her father had abused her when she was a child without actually proving it. But the jury didn't need any proof. You see, once a woman claims she has no choice except to kill someone, that's all that's necessary at this point. In states like Massachusetts, it's a get out of jail free card. Now, what's so extraordinary about decisions like these, aside from how common they become, is that not too long ago, we actually had real standards for juries. We didn't simply select people at random. I'm going to read the text of a law that was enacted by the state of Alabama in the early 20th century, and it was fully enforced through 1970 The law stated that all jurors must be generally reputed to be honest and intelligent and esteemed in the community for their integrity, good character and sound judgment. Commissioners had wide latitude to reject jurors who didn't seem to be particularly bright. If you wanted to sit on a jury, you generally had to have people vouch for you, maybe your co-workers or your church. You had to be a serious person, somebody with a reputation. Someone doesn't just sit around on the couch all day with a glass of wine scrolling TikTok.