NBC Hounds Clancy Holdout Juror at Home Even Though Names Were Supposed to Be Sealed
“How is this legal, why would anyone want to participate in our judicial process if legacy news outlets are going to try and destroy their lives it they don’t like the outcome?”
Soon after a mistrial was declared in the Lindsay Clancy case, Superior Court Judge William F. Sullivan issued an impoundment order that centered on juror safety.
“Accordingly, the Court orders that the list identifying the names of empaneled jurors in this trial be impounded,” the order read. “This Order shall not preclude any juror from identifying himself or herself and/or from speaking to the public about his or her jury service.”
The order was set to be effective for 14 days, unless the court extended it.
What the order was supposed to do was prevent “the public from using court records to identify any of the jurors during” that timeframe, considering the attention the trial had received and considering Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, had put the lone juror who did not agree with the other 11 jurors to absolve Clancy of criminal responsibility on blast in the courtroom.
JUST IN: Lindsay Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, ERUPTED in Plymouth Superior Court, telling the judge one juror “refuses to listen to the law” on reasonable doubt and moved to have that juror removed, which was denied. pic.twitter.com/cPDMJvwwcO
— RedWave Press (@RedWavePress) September 3, 2026
Apparently, NBC News Boston decided the rules didn’t apply to them, and on Friday, they revealed that not only did they know the holdout juror’s name, but that they had interviewed family members about domestic violence allegations they purportedly found from viewing court records:
EXCLUSIVE: The holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial had a history of domestic violence allegations, the NBC10 Boston Investigators have learned through court documents and interviews with family members. Read the full investigation here. https://t.co/qSjIiU8Og8
— NBC10 Boston (@NBC10Boston) September 11, 2026
Further, they noted that they had repeatedly been hounding the juror for comment at his home, but were not publishing his name because the jury list had been impounded:
NBC10 Boston has repeatedly attempted to contact the juror at home, where his landlord is currently trying to evict him.
We are not identifying him at this time because he has chosen not to speak publicly and the jury list is currently impounded. However, we wanted to share the details that experts say should have raised red flags about how he filled out his juror questionnaire.
At issue, they say, is whether or not the juror truthfully filled out the questionnaire, as “the standard juror questionnaire in Massachusetts clearly asks if someone has been arrested, charged with a crime or been served with a court order.”
A potential juror allegedly being less than forthcoming on the questionnaire would be problematic, as attorneys need that information during the voir dire process. But we all know good and darn well that NBC News wouldn’t care one bit about any of this had this juror agreed with the other 11.
For many, the NBC News report is an example of “journalism” run completely amok, and it’s something that will make people less inclined to want to serve on a jury than they already were:
A local news station is investigating a black male juror because he didn't vote the way they wanted!
How is this legal, why would anyone want to participate in our judicial process if legacy news outlets are going to try and destroy their lives it they don't like the outcome pic.twitter.com/6gjWxpoZC4
— Vince Langman (@LangmanVince) September 12, 2026
This is actually gross… This was a private citizen doing his civic duty to serve on a jury & suddenly bc you don’t like his decision, you’re going to out him & intimidate him? Is this what our media has come to?! What a joke… @RyanNBCBoston @NBC10Boston https://t.co/V4MtY6avye
— Zack Peter (@zackpeter) September 11, 2026
So a person was ordered by the government to participate in jury duty, was forced to vote guilty or not guilty on the case, and then when he voted the way other people didn’t like the local news doxxed his identity and did news stories attacking him?
Outrageous and despicable. https://t.co/v2fYbhdSCo
— Blake Neff (@BlakeSNeff) September 12, 2026
I sincerely hope multiple people lose their job for this becoming a story. Jury duty is a mandated civic duty. Guy did everything he was supposed to and is getting doxed by…. NBC. This isn’t the “press” the first amendment is meant to protect https://t.co/AqvUiDjgGo
— Craig Hulse (@craighulse) September 11, 2026
Question for @NBC10Boston :
Did your team pull the criminal history for EVERY juror or did you target the hold out black juror whose opinion clashed with your liberal, white "commentator's"?
Targeting a juror who has remained anonymous is deplorable. https://t.co/T7ssPwj5Gt
— Julie Carpenter (@JulieCar94) September 11, 2026
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) is offering asylum to the juror:
A man objected to allowing a woman to kill her three young kids and get away with it, so NBC is trying to smear that juror, whose identity should be protected. Another low for legacy media.
If the juror is being harassed, Florida will provide asylum — I’m sure he’d be welcomed… https://t.co/1kRMNAbaYD
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) September 11, 2026
At this point you have to assume the defense is working with the media to destroy the reputation of the black guy who voted to convict. He’s collateral damage. The real goal is to send a message to prosecutors to drop the case, and to intimidate future potential jurors. https://t.co/kOd3kU28kp
— FischerKing (@FischerKing64) September 11, 2026
Honestly, it’s getting harder to argue against that point when you consider that Reddington’s wife appears to have pushed the story after it went live (she has since deleted her X account):
Kevin Reddington’s wife Deb Reddington has eagerly posted the news report of @NBC10Boston and @SueOC_NBCBoston attempt to dox the holdout juror.
Take notice of who is reposting and pushing this “news”.
Is the defense in cahoots with NBC and their commentator Sue O’Connell?… pic.twitter.com/wLFwmw57Nc
— Lindsay 🇺🇸 (@TheLinzerShow) September 11, 2026
To make matters worse, social media influencers have taken to doxxing the juror, claiming to have the juror’s name and other personal information:
Aidan Kearney has just publicly doxxed the lone juror from the Lindsey Clancy trial, and I hope he is charged and arrested for this!! What an absolute POS he is! The jurors names have been impounded! pic.twitter.com/utUPOJN4eR
— Jewels 💎 (@jewels_Jewels77) September 13, 2026
X user “Uppity Hobbit” got to the heart of the matter:
…this is an attack on the integrity of our justice system itself and should be dealt with swiftly and harshly. If jurors know they can be publicly excoriated for making the “wrong” choice, all pretense of a fair trial is gone. It will simply be mob rule with extra steps.
Bingo.
– Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via X. –
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
As person with a little criminal background, he had a better understanding of criminal intent and thus understood the alleged insanity game was nothing more than BS.
It takes a criminal to know a criminal
Sorry this is a stretch.
Sorry – i probably stated it poorly. Its more of a case that he was grounded in reality, not in a leftists utopian bubble detached from reality.
That is alot more probable,
Translation: That’s a nice future potential juror pool youse gots there. It’d be a shame if something were to happen to them.
You may think you hate the MSM, but you don’t hate the enough.
I was called at least 4 times in MA for jury taught, I got off each time and not I get a complete pass because of age. I don’t think anyone wants to sit on a jury and I worry about those that do,
It’s the exact opposite in Louisiana. They WANT old farts to serve. Reminded on the 3rd time I was called to serve.
That’s the problem with our jury system. Too many people try to get out of serving who might otherwise be responsible jurors.
There were also nurses on the jury that used their position to influence others about the expert witness testimony that came from nurses. My understanding is that this is not supposed to happen in jury proceedings.
Having sat on several juries, we were instructed to only consider testimony presented in court. Someone should look into weather these nurses have a license to practice psychiatry.
Yes the requirement to only consider testimony presented in court. A prime example would be the George floyd trial. It was the fluid in Floyd’s lungs that prevented his breathing. But we could not consider the known biological fact that the oxygen could not be exchanged via the tiny air sacs in the lungs because it wasnt part of the testimony.
It depends on what is talked about.
For an example, say you have a trial where “experts” testify about wooden “2 x 4’s” being used to build a wall. In the jury room, someone asks “how can you have a wall built by boards that are 4 inches wide but the walls are only 3 and a half inches deep?”
A person familiar with “2” x 4″s” can speak up and say “2 x 4″s are actually “1.5 x 3.5″”
The basis of a “jury or ones peers” is that people bring into the jury room their life experiences.
Nope, I am not sure how the nurse practice act in Ma. works but from what has emerged so far is that the Nurses on the Jury tried to basically act as expert witnesses and supplant what the experts said in court with their own interpretations of Toxicology reports. There are several issues.
Nurses BSN and down can not interpret what Toxicology reports mean, because it is outside of their scope of practice. An advanced practice nurse can interpret some labs but things like toxicology reports are pretty specialized and very well may be out of their scope as well.
If the Nurses did do what has been accused then they as above they tried to supplant their own interpretation for the expert witnesses.
As a 30+ year Nurse what it basically comes down to in that deliberation room is, you may be a nurse out there, but you aren’t in here.
Those Nurses may have endangered their licensure and I think they should be investigated by whatever agency governs Nurse in that state.
If I was a nurse, I’d keep the expert counsel to myself, and not proffer it to the rest of the jurors, thereby tainting them. The reason why I will vote guilty/not guilty will be mine and mine alone.
Gov. DeSantis nailed it.
Domestic violence allegations, not convictions. So he’s used to women lying about him and saw right through Clancy’s falsehoods.
I thought the same.
The leakers are being fervently pursued by state government investigators and arrests are expected within the week.
🤣🤡🤣🤡🤣🤡🤣🤡🤣🤡
The ad hoc anti holdout juror posse certainly didn’t worry about allowing the ‘authorities’ to take the lead. So these harpies have no grounds to complain if an ad hoc posse opposed to their shenanigans also chooses their own methods and course of action in furtherance of their own views. Either ad hoc vigilante actions of any kind are wrong and shouldn’t be done including doxing OR they are fair game.
The vile and racist Dhimmi-crats are reverting back to their Reconstruction-era roots.
All they need now is some white hoods, wooden crosses and gasoline.
Yes let’s call this what it is. Racism pure and simple. 12 jurors. 9 women. One and only one black make. The 9 white women attempted to womensplain to the black make. They probably talked down to them. The news media no doubt led by white women are attempting to do the same. To intimidate him. Typical progressive racism and acting noble to save educate the poor black man.
It never ends.
When you peel off the outer layer, you see that the people who accuse others of racism are actually the ones who are racist.
In many cases and the left are masters of projection.
The other jurors were more upset with that guy demostrating strangulation with the water bottle than they ever were with the murderess mommy who actually brutally killed her kids in that same manner.
“Massachusetts law prohibits anyone “to engage in an act directed at a [juror] that seriously alarms or annoys such person” with a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment.”
So *now* we’re interested in upholding the letter of the law in Massachusetts because it’s our ox being gored?
I guess we can just ignore anything to do with finding someone not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. That part of the law is icky.
You can’t choose to ignore laws you don’t like, especially if you’re a juror. You’re given the facts, you’re given the law and you’re given the legal standard.
Don’t like the law? Run for office, introduce legislation to change it. That’s the way it works.
I said at the time of the verdict that the 11 got it right because they applied the law to the facts (in spite of the opinion of the public) and that the holdout professed that that there was reasonable doubt yet voted to convict in spite of the law, the facts and the judge’s instructions.
Now it’s pretty evident that #12 beat the 💩 out of his ex & nephew, lied about it on his paperwork, got on the jury and threw a monkey wrench into the process.
Some hero.
Clancy killed her children, no one is disputing that clear fact. What is equally clear is that she was deeply mentally ill and instead of receiving competent care, mountain of malpractice fell upon her. Where’s the condemnation of our nearly-socialized medical system? Where’s the condemnation of Barack Obama “You can keep your (Playschool) doctor “ Obama? Or Mitt Romney, who introduced Obamacare to Massachusetts before Obama did it to the rest of the nation? Crickets.
This whole thing is a freakin’ train wreck. I’m just shocked that people are engaging in this witch-hunt.
Whether she is mentally ill is irrelevant. She displayed cognizance of guilt by arranging events around her actions to hide her intentions.
Exactly. Waiting until one’s spouse has left the house, before murdering one’s children, shows pre-meditated calculation, planning and appreciation of the murders’ immorality, by the perp. Otherwise, she would have murdered them (or, attempted to murder them) while her spouse was still in the house.
That’s ridiculous. All it shows is that she knew if he were around he would try to stop her. It doesn’t show that she knew what she was doing was wrong. Ones husband’s disapproval doesn’t automatically make something wrong.
Normally I would agree with your analysis, but not this time. Although not phrased exactly that way, the Massachusetts insanity defense relied on here (did not know what she did was wrong, or could not stop herself) is in essence the “irresistible impulse” defense. Carefully planning out the killing in advance and getting her husband out of the house in order to do it would be an indication to many reasonable observers that she was not unable to understand what she was doing was wrong, or to refrain from doing it.
Well then, if she “knew he would try to stop her” she must have known that what she was planning to do was wrong. Why else would he try to stop her? Not for fun and games. Sheesh. Her husband’s potential disapproval of killing her children DID automatically make it wrong and to pretend otherwise is patently absurd.
What is your source for that claim? That’s not the common law insanity defense, which is simply an inability to distinguish right from wrong. An insane person is no more guilty than an animal.
That’s just too stupid for words. He would try to stop her because they were his children. It’s got nothing to do with right or wrong.
That is fatuous and patriarchal. Right and wrong never depend on what other people think. That’s the lesson of Huckleberry Finn.
Her defense is that she was determined to kill herself, and was convinced that the children would suffer without her, would be neglected by her husband and taken by social services, so they were better off dying with her, and she was protecting them by killing them. Obviously her husband would object to such a thing and would try to stop her, so she had to get him out of the way.
The only question before the jury was whether there was at least a reasonable chance that this was true, or were they convinced beyond reasonable doubt that it’s a lie and she did it for some other reason.
Even more so,she manipulated the situation so that he would not be there, then sent him a message telling him ‘say good bye to your kids’, so what does that tell you unless she planned on something like this before hand? Then she went about methodically strangling those poor kids, which took a bit of time and effort for each child, and she could have stopped at any time, between kids, but she didn’t, which means she was feeling ZERO remorse as she went, she just kept going. This was a clear cut case of pre meditated infanticide. There is only one logical verdict to be had here by a reasonable and sane person. Sadly there was only one on this jury.
You’re completely ignoring the defense.
Of course she planned it beforehand, and of course she could have stopped at any time. No one ever disputed that. The defense never disputed that.
The defense is that she was psychotic, didn’t know right from wrong, and believed she was doing the right thing by killing them and herself. That she truly believed she was protecting them from the suffering she thought was inevitable after her death. And therefore she was incapable of knowing that what she was doing was wrong. Either that is true or it’s a lie, but you can’t just ignore it and pretend that the defense relied on the killings not being planned.
Assuming that’s true, still better than baby killer Clancy. And you.
“So *now* we’re interested in upholding the letter of the law in Massachusetts because it’s our ox being gored?”
You’re right. Let’s just ignore ALL the state laws, just to be fair.
It’s only Massachusetts, and we should let it be all that it wants to be.
Everyone who murders has mental illness to some degree and that goes double for child killing.
Mental illness is not the threshold. It’s actually whether or not she could understand what she was doing. The voices thing was likely completely made up, and she was competent enough to plan it and execute it with clear evidence of that presented at trial.
I think he came closer to following the law than the rest who were trying to berate him into changing his vote (and have described as much in interviews).
Regarding mental illness, I must disagree. That basis makes excuses for every crime, especially murder. There are people that are just plain evil. My 40 years in law enforcement proved that to me.
No it doesn’t make a legit excuse. Someone can be nutty as fruitcake BUT if they demonstrated they understand right v wrong then their mental health diagnosis doesn’t mean jack squat.
This broad demonstrated the ability to understand what she did was wrong via Jer methodical actions. She planned it. She sent her husband out of the home to run errands to create opportunity. She strangled her three children. She then demonstrated remorse by a suicidal ideation/attempt.
Not what I said. My point was that mental illness does not excuse a crime by default.
I read that she told the children to “go to God” as she was strangling each one. It seems to me that would indicate she knew exactly what she was doing.
Of course she knew what she was doing. Who ever disputed that? The insanity defense is not that the defendant didn’t know what he was doing, it’s that he was incapable of knowing that it was wrong. She knew what she was doing, and the defense claim is that in her psychosis she truly believed she was doing right, and protecting the children from the horrible things that would happen to them without her. That’s either a lie or the truth, but straw men like this can’t help us determine which is the case.
Now it’s pretty evident that #12 beat the 💩 out of his ex & nephew, lied about it on his paperwork,
You mean, like the hag juror that showed up to bitch on TV?….
Kellie Farina, the Free Karen Read superfan who voted to let Lindsay Clancy walk — has her own assault-and-battery case sitting in the Massachusetts system from 2002. Same charge type they used to smear the man who held the line.
And she was actually charged. This guy was never charged with anything.
Well, Peter, I hope that you never serve on a jury. You already judged the holdout juror as guilty of beating the “S–t” out of his ex and nephew based purely on newspaper reports by disgruntled women. It’s pretty evident that you’d be violating judge’s orders if you served.
“the holdout professed that that there was reasonable doubt yet voted to convict in spite of the law, the facts and the judge’s instructions.”
Did the holdout tell you this? Or did the other jurors who hate him tell you that? Is it more likely the other jurors are angry at him and are twisting things or the judge who interviewed him after the jury note got it wrong?
“Now it’s pretty evident that #12 beat the 💩 out of his ex & nephew, lied about it on his paperwork, got on the jury and threw a monkey wrench into the process. ”
You’re stating facts without evidence. We don’t know what actually happened. He was cleared about everything. We do not know what he said on his questionnaire. Massachusetts law lets courts do a basic criminal background check on each juror. They didn’t find anything.
Boy your nuts
Temporary insanity. It happens to the best of us.
She did have treatment but she didn’t take her meds. The toxicology report was negative
She planned this all along
What a pice of shit
Wouldn’t you love to have her as your L&D nurse?
“I said at the time of the verdict that the 11 got it right because they applied the law to the facts (in spite of the opinion of the public) and that the holdout professed that that there was reasonable doubt yet voted to convict in spite of the law, the facts and the judge’s instructions.”
You only have the note sent by the foreman and the statement by the defense attorney as the source the juror agreed the state had not shown guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge disagreed with that claim. So we do not know whether he truly thought reasonable doubt had been proven by the D.A. What we do know from interviews with other jurors that there was jury misconduct by the nurses on the jury.
It was more than the note. It is also what the crazy nurse mad he didn’t respect her “expertise” on pharmaceuticals and mentally illness (even though she isn’t a doctor let alone psychiatrist) and the other crazy one who admitted she had her mind made up before the trial both claim.
The pertinent point is that his words aren’t binding, He very well could have believed certain things in his head and just said other things to these crazy women just to end conversations.
Are you kidding? Lindsay received the care she sought. She lied to her therapists, she doctor shopped, she never complied with treatment plans. She manipulated the system in the same way she manipulated her husband to get him out of the house long enough to kill her kids.
She was in a better position in terms of finances, support, and medical care than 99%+ of the women in the world who have children.
“Now it’s pretty evident that #12 beat the 💩 out of his ex & nephew, lied about it on his paperwork, got on the jury and threw a monkey wrench into the process. ”
Charges were dismissed. The paperwork is confidential and per the news was discarded so we don’t know what he put on it. If you think that lawyers from both sides don’t think people lie on those form you are a kidding yourself. I am sure that part of jury selection is weighing those answers against what was written on the forms.
One of the psycho women jurors also has assault charges that were dismissed on her record, but they don’t count to the crazies I guess..
You are 100% correct on the law — if in fact that holdout juror stated in the deliberations he had a reasonable doubt that Clancy was sane at the time and still held to convict while holding that reasonable doubt. That is a clear violation of the law. He should have simply stated he believed the prosecution’s experts over the defense’s and left it at that. His honesty is the reason for this mess, not the other eleven.
There is no proof other than the words of a couple of the other jurors that he many any such statement and even the foreman’s notes only said doubt not reasonable doubt. Also, considering the wine box Karen’s….I mean jurors professed hatred for this man I think any accusation should be taken with a salt lick.
None of us knows what happened in that room, though I see lots of folks declaring that hearsay (which is all there is) are facts. No one outside of those 12 know what was said in that room and that is the way it is supposed to be. Also, no one has any right to question his final vote, not even the other jurors. He was chosen he cast his vote. The End!
Also, what is the outcome people are expecting even if every allegation is true, it would lead to a mistr…….oh…wait. No judge is going to give the directed verdict that Reddington is requesting, especially with that state wanting to do a retrial.
People keep acting like if they can prove this man did X then Lindsey will just be magically let go and roll away like a disney princess in a beam of sunlight. Not Going To Happen.
Ok, rant over, sorry @George S most of that wasn’t directed specifically at you.
“the holdout professed that that there was reasonable doubt yet voted to convict in spite of the law”
This has never been proven, in fact even the notes from the foreperson never said “reasonable doubt” they only said “doubt” This is nothing more than hearsay, You don’t know, I don’t know, neither of us were in that room, and I have no reason to believe the words of the 11 female jurors, especially since they were “excited” that they thought he agreed with them at one point. I think it is more likely that he disagreed with them on some points but on the balance he felt she should be convicted. Which is all the justification that is needed.
The hold out is under no obligation to explain his vote to anyone and if you think the courts are going to grill him on his thinking well you just keep sniffing those unicorn farts. In fact it would be completely inappropriate for them to question him.
“Now it’s pretty evident that #12 beat the 💩 out of his ex & nephew, lied about it on his paperwork, got on the jury and threw a monkey wrench into the process.”
This is also nothing but hearsay. The DV charge was during a nasty divorce and it is almost universal that the wife in those cases will make some kind of abuse accusation, however, most are dismissed. His was dismissed because the wife asked for it to be, which means she also refused to cooperate with the investigation. So I would take that DV allegation with a large salt lick.
The ppo by the Nephew was a standard ppo which all you have to do is pretty much sign up for to get. Once again there are no charges or even investigation related to that PPO, which from my understanding has now expired.
“instead of receiving competent care, mountain of malpractice fell upon her.”
Actually, the pattern most closely fits the theory that Clancy was “doctor shopping” and as far as anyone knows she never informed each one that she had seen the other.
So basically what you have written here is a good bit of potential libel against several people stating hearsay as facts.
https://x.com/MafiaMasshole/status/2098615525370683436
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HR_HsqPXcAEcRNH?format=jpg&name=small
Ok, there is no evidence that any of the jurors lied on their Jury Forms and only the court has access to those forms and hasn’t released them.
The whole “lied on the jury form” argument is ignorant at best. It is also based upon a presumption that if the holdout juror had reported his past it would have disqualified him from serving and form what I have read that just is not the case.
“The holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial had a history of domestic violence allegations”
Allegations? Oh, I see, you have to be sure to broadcast allegations about people whose opinions you disagree with.
FCC, take away NBC’s broadcast license. Maybe the other trash networks will learn from it.
This mess would challenge King Solomon.
Should the hold out juror have been on the jury in the first place?
Dunno, but – at first glance – no.
Should other jurors have been disqualified for viewpoints?
Apparently yes.
Should juror be punished for identifying the hold out juror despite Judge’s order?
YES! The semi-indirect ID should be sufficient to trigger a sanction. (semi-indirect as a term of art… not copyrighted yet).
Was the jury panel stacked? Or stacking was not necessary because many MA residents are sympathetic, i.e. the panel just naturally was stacked?
We need not reach the issue of her mental state, now or then – the issue before us is solely the jury composition.
As for the freedom of press folks hounding the juror, and researching history etc — another mixed bag. Apparently, MA does not research juror histories. Should they? Apparently the research is accurate. Freedom of press to uncover tidbits is established.
Solomon would be challenged here! A poo mess all around. IMHO.
The jurors who showed up in pink…signaling their allegiance to LC…should have been replaced immediately. They were showing how they would vote. No amount of evidence would change their mind.
That is pure supposition. Even assuming that two jurors did wear pink (a claim that is disputed) there is no basis for asserting that it was meant to signal anything, or that they were even aware of other people wearing pink to express their support for her.
“Should the hold out juror have been on the jury in the first place?
Dunno, but – at first glance – no.”
There is nothing but hearsay and no credible evidence that he should have been disqualified. Accusations and allegations aren’t convictions.
Also, remember that both the prosecution and the defense agreed to his appointment.
Why is having one hold-out a problem: that’s the point.
Are the lenient ‘leven more bugged…
— that they didn’t get their way,
— couldn’t brow beat this guy out of his conscience,
— were prevented from ejecting the wrong-thinker,
— directly experienced someone who thought nothing of their acceptance,
— couldn’t whine their way into getting the protocol changed so it came out right,
— missed the public celebratiin of a righteous aquittal,
— had their curated expert-ness rejected,
— or just had to soend time in a room with someone they found deplorable. (Absent exercise bands and the will to use them, that’s gonna happen sometimes. Too soon?)
You can tell the movie was already in their heads from.the race to nterviews. They weren’t deciding from a trial but choosing what would best position them next.
The bleating of people deprived of something they thought was coming has its own music. “I was robbed!”
The NBC10 Boston news maggots are despicable, biased and menatlly ill clowns, that have lost touch with reality . The truth is irrelevant to the MSM. Their attack on a jury member is as low as you can get. They don’t like the verdict so they are going to be judge, jury and hang man to make this man pay for it. Freedom of a socialist biased press might cost us every thing.
My understanding is that what the media did, by investigating this juror, has more to do with legal strategy, rather than political bias, although considering we are talking about Massachusetts, the two may be indistinguishable.
Jeopardy (of life or limb, per the 5th amendment) exists when you are tried by the State. A mistrial is an exception to that, which legally removes jeopardy. Therefore, the state can try you again.
There is an exception, to the exception of mistrial, and that is when there is juror misconduct. If juror misconduct can be demonstrated, the original jeopardy from the State initially trying you still applies, therefore, the State can’t try you again.
This is my understanding from listening to Andrew Branca commenting on this case
The jury list was impounded meaning the state / court could not release it to the media as the list is typically a public record.
It does not mean that if the jurors who knew the man’s name could not tell the media, co-workers, family, friends, etc.
$10 says it does.
Reddington certainly knows the names of the jurors as well.
Trial by jury is dead. Trial by combat is the future
Too messy. Instead we should weigh criminals. If they weigh the same as a duck they’re made of wood, and therefore guilty.
Who are you that is so versed in the ways of science!?
I haven’t followed every twist and turn of this case. Other news events seem more relevant to me. I simply hope that her new trial is fair. Whether criminality or insanity is the verdict, society should not set her free, based on her vicious acts.
And can we throw away the Race Card? I don’t give a darn what the juror’s race is!
The race is only relevant because it makes the juror easier to identify.
This whole fiasco of a trial was FUBAR from the first second it started.
The judge was a huge wuss who kept letting reddington run all over him and there are several times that a judge with some spine would have warned Reddington to stop his antics and Reddington should probably have been held in contempt and put in jail for a couple of days or at least fined.
The prosecution acted like they were trying to lose the trial, they were more monotone than my most boring college professor. They made the teacher from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off look like Sam Kinison.
OK, no one at NBC or their collaborators will be punished in any way. Neither will the nurses who violated jury instructions. And the “lone Juror” is going to be assassinated soon And no one will be punished for that.
Subotai Bahadur
Already the media and others are softening Lindsay Clancy’s profile. They’re going to try to make her more gentle. Take a look at the above photo and one of one or two days ago.
So the “trial” is still ongoing because defense made a mockery of it. Reddington ought to be made to account for his reckless statements regarding the lone juror. Who in their right mind will want to serve on a jury in the future? What a travesty…
Oh, and enough of the Lindsay photos. Just stop.
I agree that Reddington’s deliberate (not “reckless”) actions were not what one would expect from an “officer of the court”, and probably should cause consideration of disbarment or at least censure.
A little known, but historically accurate—and sort of funny—movie addresses this. It’s Bernie, and it’s about a murder in Carthage, Texas. Jack Black plays Bernie, Shirley MacLaine plays the victim, and Matthew McConaughey plays the DA. Interviews with citizens of Carthage show that no one—nary a single person—would vote to convict Bernie. Some even went so far as to say that there were people in town who would have carried out the murder for $10. The victim was a nasty piece of work who everyone despised.
There was really little (read: zero) in the way of exculpatory evidence: he had made excuses about her absence—she was at a spa, she was traveling in Europe, she was having some plastic surgery and didn’t want to be seen—and she was eventually found in his freezer. He did it.
So what’s a DA to do with deck stacked against him like that? He asked for a change of venue. Unprecedented for a prosecutor to do that, but there it was. And he got it. The jury pool wasn’t sympathetic one way or the other. And Bernie’s still in jail.
Wouldn’t it be funny if Clancy wound up being a Republican, and voted for Trump. Oh, the glory!!!
I guess here is as good a place as any to remind you. First the pants then the shoes.
Actually it is extremely difficult to go against a jury of your peers and my inclination is that the holdout juror was a man of conviction who would not allow himself to be bullied into going with the Suicidal Empathy flow exhibited by liberal women and a smaller number of men. I admire this guy for refusing to bow under extreme pressure.
“Altruistic filicide” Maybe the voice Clancy heard was Magda Goebbels.
There should be some real and meaningful laws about exposing a juror, especially in cases like this, and they should apply in every single State, and they should have real, serious consequences, both financial, as well as physical (you do time), and a serious amount of it, and I don’t care if you are a private citizen of a lawyer or a manner of the media in some fashion. The damage that can be done to a person for simply sitting on a jury and doing what (one can only hope) is what they believe is the right thing to do, is totally unconscionable.
I’m not a Massachusetts attorney, but looking at the Massachusetts statutes online, it seems to me like this “news” organization is violating Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268, § 13B
Three children were murdered, and only one juror thought it a heinous crime? What is this world coming to? C’mon, man. A lot of us have gone through depressive episodes without trying to kill anyone.