A juror in the trial of Lindsay Clancy is sharing new details about what he said happened inside the jury room that led to a mistrial in the case of the Massachusetts woman facing first-degree murder charges for the 2023 deaths of her three young children.
Nick Dargie, one of the three men on the 12-person jury, told ABC News’ Aaron Katersky that the lone holdout juror who prevented a unanimous verdict did not show any evidence explaining his vote.
“There was several times I would ask him to show us evidence or, you know, describe a witness testimony that helped to prove what he was saying, and … he couldn’t,” Dargie, 25, said in an interview Wednesday.
The quote is that he couldn’t “prove what he was saying,” which suggests that he had his own idea of what happened instead.
We don’t know what that idea was (yet?), and depending on what it is, Lone Juror may be justified or not.
Because of the way the justice system is configured in the US, a juror’s vote is unassailable. This is what jury nullification stems from. That can and surely does go the other way, where someone is convicted of a crime they didn’t commit, just because the jury felt like it, damn the evidence or lack thereof.
Can’t wait until they decide that federal juries get to be handpicked by a “neutral party.”
Is no one else just a little, tiny bit enormously concerned that social media is having a post-jury interview fest? Like holy shit, is no one else worried that we are suddenly scrutinizing jurors? That’s the first step to killing jury nullification. Imagine getting called to a high profile case, and you make a decision the public doesn’t like. Imagine losing your job over it due to public backlash. Imagine getting stalked and harassed, literally for performing your civic duty. Imagine you stand up against fascism by utilizing jury nullification against an unjust law, only to be mercilessly harassed by the police for months on end because focusing on jurors has become the norm.
When the trial is over, the jurors should cease to exist. The media should not “tell their story” because their story begins and ends with the trial. Jurors identities should be kept sealed once the trial concludes.
Yeah, I was really weirded out by all the interviews happening right now and how openly they are discussing what went on behind closed doors.
You’re right, but being people who have freedom of speech, there’s little that can be done about that.
Unless you start flagging on the people who do the interviews.
Yea, once you are placed on the jury, you have the right to vote “because I said so”
IANAL but the article suggests a juror’s vote is not unassailable, which is why this ended in mistrial (there was something wrong with the trial) rather than a hung jury.
A jury’s vote is unassailable, so if 12 people unanimously say “not guilty because that guy deserved it” or “not guilty because that shouldn’t be illegal” that verdict has to be accepted.
Hung jury is the reason for the mistrial. A mistrial is any trial that ends invalidly before a final verdict.
A single juror’s vote can only be challenged for a small number of reasons, like disregarding the judge’s orders, doing outside research, discussing the case outside the jury room, and curiously, mentioning jury nullification.
This is where the details of Lone Juror’s idea come into play. Unless it’s something wacky like “it’s possible aliens did it” or “demonic possession”, Lone Juror would not likely be challenged.