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.
Love that all the incels are going to bitch and whine about a case they only know from headlines for a month.
Some people are just contrarian
Being a contrarian is a huge red flag
Being a contrarian is a huge red flag
No it isn’tI see what you did there
No you didn’t.
having 9 women and 3 men, wasnt by accident, they definitely wanted her acquited. they know if women are chosen they often would sympathesize with the defendant more. thats why juror pools are kinda rigged.
Jury nullification in action.
This was a mistrial not jury nullification. She can still be retried
It’s weird to see the other jurors shit talk the lone one to the media. Why do it? It make them look like assholes.
Tribes. Just tribes.
some people on another platform, said they want thier 15minutes of fame, so they try to do a SJW move for women.
Well they arent required to have evidence. Their reasoning is their own.
But some reasoning should be required for a vote. If you can’t prove any, it means you didn’t do any, and you’re making a major decision haphazardly
That will just give a license to arbitrarily remove jurors. There’s no way to do one without the other.
I disagree. “I didn’t believe these witnesses, but I did believe these witnesses, but I can’t articulate why,” is perfectly valid.
But he didn’t even do that. It says they asked the person to point to any testimony and they couldn’t.
And he doesn’t have to. “I didn’t believe the defense’s assertions of insanity, I believe the state’s case beyond a reasonable doubt. I can’t point to one, two, or three specific things, I just didn’t believe it in it’s totality,” is valid.
Edit: A lack of ability to articulate his reasoning would certainly be a hinderance to getting anyone on his side, but the validity of his vote doesn’t depend on his ability to pull a Twelve Angry Men.
See this is kind of the point. He didnt even do that much, according to the article. Which is what most people would do when it’s their thought. If the juror was somehow compromised or lying, they would act like they acted here. No reason, no reasoning, no defense.
I dunno, neither of us were in the room. We can’t say exactly what happened, but to me this reeks of some tampering or something. But we won’t know.
I’d say he did it with his vote, whether he vocalized it or not. And, of course as you said we weren’t there so this is right out of my ass, being bullied by eleven other people might have made him defensive and withdrawn.
Miscarriages of justice happen every day, maybe there would be fewer if jurors that weren’t sure didn’t go along with the group. Demonizing this guy sends a message that jurors in the next high profile case will remember.
No reason, no reasoning, no defense.
It’s 2026. That’s the status quo now. Expecting people to think before, during, or after their actions is uncalled for.
It might not even be that someone told him to. Maybe he just really hates her and doesn’t want to admit that.
Jurors do not have to “follow the law”. If it was that simple, we would just let the judge decide innocence and guilt.
Jurors can acquit people they know are guilty, so it stands to reason they can convict someone they know are innocent. It’s not ideal, just superior to the alternative.
I don’t know any particulars about this specific case because I did not follow it. But that being said, he doesn’t have to justify his vote in my opinion. There’s a reason we have a jury of multiple people. The entire system was designed specifically for this possibility to arise to put a check on the possibility of mob mentality.
I don’t know if he made the right call. I’m just glad that he has the right to make the call of his conscious in this system.
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.
This is strange, we know there was expert testimony that Clancy was not suffering psychosis. Did the jurors simply forget that testimony or was there further conflicting testimony that actually cast doubt?
The public reaction and copycat killing are disturbing to say the least.
Yeah but didn’t the defense also have an expert testify the opposite?
A singular expert’s opinion is never a “case closed” matter.
This is strange, we know there was expert testimony that Clancy was not suffering psychosis
My understanding is that the prosecution expert said that she hadn’t given her doctors reason to suspect she was experiencing psychosis.
Ie, he didn’t say that she wasn’t psychotic when she murdered her kids.
The expert then conceded a lot of points to the defence about how psychosis could have set in quickly.
But I might not be recalling properly.
The articles I read about the first 3 that spoke out seemed like they had an axe to grind. I’m not putting much stock in their opinions.
The whole concept of being able to claim insanity as a defense comes from a time when people literally thought you could be possessed by demons.
Murdering children is an act of insanity. Always. That’s not a defense, it’s a given.
EDIT: this is not about punishment. It’s about ethics: when evaluating the morality of an action, you must consider the causal and intentional facts. Everything else, such as mental illness, either supervenes on these causal and intentional facts or it is irrelevant.
- Did the person kill innocent children? Yes.
- Did they intend to do so? Also yes.
Whether that person subsumed alcohol or whether they are mentally ill simply does not matter except insofar as it relates to the two questions above.
I want to stress that anyone downvoting these rudimentary facts is a total goddamned moron.
I couldn’t find a source on the possession thing, but maybe you’re referring to the general way that mental health used to be explained by the supernatural when we didn’t fully understand the involved conditions.
This article was a fun read, and so was the wiki :)
Also, they’re looking for specific, named conditions/diagnosis. Nobody is claiming she’s insane because she killed her kids. They’re pointing to the history of mental health issues/treatment, various prescribed psych meds, the immediate subsequent suicide attempt, etc. Mental health professionals testified for both sides. It isn’t a vibes thing.
Literally none of this is ethically relevant.
You don’t know what that word means.
Insanity isn’t a get out of jail free card, she’s going to be institutionalized for a long time, maybe even her whole life. It can be a fate worse than jail, but at least she has the proper medical attention needed
My problem isn’t with the punishment. From an ethics perspective, the framing of insanity as having any normative relevance is simply incorrect.
The relevant facts are causal and intentional.
But then again, the average person has the ethics of a baboon, so this is academic.
A lot of crime is evidence of insanity, from narcissism, megalomania; really, all homicide is rooted in insanity.
We lock those people the hell up, though.
No one gets a cushy institutionalization unless their docs all agree. Into genpop until then.
Cushy institutionalization? You’ve got some wild misunderstandings of how any of this works. It’s prison, with prison conditions. Nothing fucking cushy about it, but I’m guessing you’re far more interested in punishment than rehabilitation.
I’m certainly not interested in rehabilitating child murderers. Just get them out of society forever.
Good for him, you shouldn’t let a murderer off just because of peer pressure.
Seems to me that if that were the case he could have pointed to a particular piece of evidence or witness testimony that supports his conclusion.
Well, there was that whole trial. And everyone does agree she strangled her kids.
She admitted to the killings, yes. The problem was deciding her mental fitness to be held responsible criminally.
Lets not just ignore the legal nuance that makes this a complex situation. Otherwise we’ll just talk past each other the entire time.
But didn’t the other 11 jurors vote not guilty by reason of insanity?
The lone juror
deleted by creator
I mean, wasn’t it either prison or high security mental health facility? I don’t think she gets off scott free either way.
I don’t get why people act like the dude was the sole hero blocking her from going free and getting starbucks on the way to her next infanticide.
She has a chance of getting out of the mental health facility, thats what I believe most people are having an issue with. Personally I think she was and is insane but I don’t think anyone who murders children should ever walk free. It’s a hard spot to be in because she definitely needs the mental help and she wont get that in prison but the murders are unforgivable.
