Lindsay Clancy juror reveals male holdout who wanted to convict is black

Those women on that jury would not have convicted her no matter what color she was just because she was a woman they made it very clear.

 

Perhaps.......I stand by my opinion. It sounds better to say, "Woman Power." Nobody outright admits they have prejudices. That's detected in one's actions. It doesn't really matter. I stand by my opinion. Doesn't make it right or wrong. All I'm saying is I understand King's mindframe now. I'll leave it here.

 

To be clear, being found not guilty to mental incompetence isn't the same things as being acquitted.

According to Massachusetts law it comes with a mandatory 6 month involuntary commitment that can be extended until the individual is no longer a threat to themselves or others. Given Clancy tried to commit suicide immediately after committing her atrocity and she's been on the most restrictive suicide watch for the last three years, I doubt she'd get out any time soon. According to what I've read, the shortest time is 8 years. Given what I've read about state run mental institutions and high security prisons I think I'd rather be in the high security prison.

 

When a juror ignores the judges instructions.

Say a person kills another but claims a "stand your ground" defense. The judge gives clear instructions on what 'stand your ground' means. 11 jurors follow that instruction and 1 openly doesn't. Maybe the one says "killing is murder regardless of the reason" or maybe he says "reap what you sow, the criminal got what he deserved". Jury nullification is a serious issue that society must continually address. It serves as a check against governmental abuse but can also be abused to reinforce unjust social norms. Whenever there is obvious jury nullification society should take notice and adjust laws accordingly.

 

Says who? From what I've read he repeatedly said that he had doubts but his doubts didn't matter.

 

She also told her husband multiple times that she had thoughts of hurting her kids. If one of my friends told me that I'd suddenly become a foster parent and they'd have ZERO unaccompanied access to the children. If it were my spouse they'd be involuntarily committed until we figured out the meds.

But again, being found not guilty to mental incompetence isn't the same things as being acquitted and the hospital where she's currently incarcerated has a long and sordid history of staff abusing the inmates.

And if you'd like to see her dead - let her out. Dollars to doughnuts she offs herself within 6 months. Personally I wish they'd let her die after the first suicide attempt and not interfered with the subsequent attempts. I don't see how she can make any contribution to society so let her make the choice.

 

Let's apply some logic. A sane person who does not want to be married or deal with children files for divorce or disappears. A sane person would think if I kill someone I will be caught and there goes my freedom and life. A sane person does not cut their throat and wrists and then jump out of a second story window. What would any sane person hope to gain by doing what she did? The insane person planned and committed a horrific act.

 

So you think some sound mined caring human working in the mentally impaired industry will love the fact she is paralyzed from the waste down. Of course if she has no voice and it's figured she deserve it, makes it all ok.

 

NBC Boston Just Made a Juror the Story. Massachusetts Law May Not Like It.

Lindsay Clancy admitted she strangled her three young children in Duxbury. Eleven jurors were ready to call it not guilty by reason of insanity. One man said no. The trial ended in a mistrial.

That should have been the end of the civic duty conversation. Instead, NBC Boston investigator Ryan Kath went hunting. The station published court records and family interviews about the lone holdout: old domestic violence allegations, a dismissed 2021 assault charge involving his then-wife, a later restraining order sought by his nephew, an active order while he sat in the jury box, and a pending eviction for unpaid rent. They did not print his name. They showed enough documents and details that others quickly pieced together who he was. The jury list remains impounded.

Fellow jurors had already gone on television to call him arrogant and uncooperative. Defense lawyers tried to have him tossed. Commentators treated his refusal to join the majority as a scandal. Then the local NBC affiliate treated his private life as fair game.

Massachusetts General Laws chapter 268, section 13B is not subtle. It makes it a crime to willfully intimidate, harass, or interfere with a juror, or to retaliate against one for participating in a proceeding, when the purpose is to obstruct the process or punish the person for doing the job. Penalties run up to ten years, or twenty if the underlying case is a life-eligible crime. Child murder qualifies.

The holdout was the only Black man on a mostly white, mostly female panel. That fact has been treated as either shocking or convenient, depending on who is talking. What it is not is a license to turn a citizen who sat through weeks of evidence into a public target because he would not vote the way the room, the defense, and much of the coverage wanted.

A juror is not required to explain himself to television. He is required to apply the law as he understands it. Eleven people reached one conclusion. One reached another. That is how hung juries happen. It is not how journalists are supposed to treat the people the state compelled to serve.

If a civil lawyer is now looking at this, it is not hard to see why. The trial is over. The juror did his job. The station decided his past was the next exclusive. The statute on the books exists for a reason. Someone at NBC Boston might have read it first.