Thoughts on The Holdout Juror Who Wanted to Convict Lindsay Clancy For Murdering Her 3 Young Children

I generally tend not to follow trials which occupy space in the news cycle. There is too much of a tabloid element for my taste. 

This also applies to trials which occur here in Massachusetts such as the two murder trials of Karen Read nor the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy - that is until it resulted in a mistrial due to a holdout juror.

As you may recall, I served on a federal jury last December concerning a drug case and ended up on the wrong end of an 11-1 vote until I reluctantly voted to convict. 

Given the circumstances, I must say that I have a great admiration for that holdout juror for sticking to his guns. There is a big part of me that wishes I had done the same. 

Now as you can imagine, the other jurors in the Clancy case do not share my admiration. I know full well that the jurors with whom I served could not stand the sight of me because they wanted to go home. 

The juror in question has not come forward since the mistrial as of this writing. Whether he will choose to speak his peace in public remains to be seen and is entirely up to him.

Notwithstanding my admiration, it is quite possible that if I had served on that jury, I might have very well stood with the other 11 jurors who voted to acquit Clancy. While I am inclined to believe that Clancy knew what she was doing and willfully killed her children, I did not sit in that jury box and did not hear all the evidence. There are certain things to which a jury and those in the courtroom are privy. It is possible there were mitigating factors that would warrant a not guilty verdict despite the fact Clancy killed her children.

Given my recent experiences, had I been on that jury and voted to convict, I would like to think that I would have possessed sufficient empathy to try to reason with this juror without belittling him. Such an intervention might not have changed his mind but if I were in a such a situation I can only hope to convey an understanding for his position and an understanding why his conscience told him he could not vote with everyone else.

Perhaps this juror did gain an understanding of post-partem depression during the trial. Yet this juror probably thought this was not sufficient to justify the murder of three children - Cora Clancy, 5; Dawson Clancy, 3; and 8-month-old Callan Clancy. Perhaps he believed the victims had been forgotten and deserved justice. For this juror, it meant Lindsay Clancy was guilty of murder.