/scanPublic safety
Three Clancy jurors speak, and the holdout becomes the story
Three jurors from the Lindsay Clancy mistrial told NBC10 Boston that eleven were ready to acquit by reason of insanity. The lone holdout became the story.
- Observed threads
- 12
- Source clusters
- 3
- Observed
- Updated
The interview
The foreperson said the holdout admitted reasonable doubt but would not sign an insanity verdict. Another juror moved from guilty so Clancy could get help.
The pile-on
Rooms of one to three million views call the holdout a hero and the jurors activists, and say nurses on the jury acted as unvetted experts.
The other reading
A smaller set says doubt without acquittal undermines the presumption of innocence, and that the DA should weigh all twelve finding doubt before a retrial.
Sources
- NBC10 Boston: three jurors come forward ↗
- AP via Phil Lewis: holdout had reasonable doubt, foreperson says ↗
- Cathy Russon: the foreperson's account ↗
- Sarah Fields: three jurors come forward ↗
- Matt Van Swol: how one man caused the mistrial ↗
- End Wokeness: the holdout's seven days ↗
- Matt Walsh: jurors disregarded the law ↗
- Sean: nurses acted as experts in the jury room ↗
- Nick Sortor: the juror who was excited ↗
- LD Blonde Pod: doubt without acquittal is a problem ↗
- Bederow Law: what the DA should weigh ↗
- Sharyl Attkisson: persuade, do not bully ↗