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.
“For fucks sake it’s 2026 and I just want to kill someone. What’s the GD problem?”
She strangled her kids and tried to hide behind mental illness, a not guilty would be an absolute travesty.
That juror could end up in legal trouble because it sounds like they lied during the voir dire process. One of the things they will ask you is if you are willing to follow the judge’s instructions. We had a lady dismissed because she said no, she would use her own judgement.
What the fuck is the point of trial by jury then?
Love that all the incels are going to bitch and whine about a case they only know from headlines for a month.
Isn’t that most ppl though? That’s how news works for the most part, isn’t it?
Three dead children isn’t enough evidence? Are you all fucking insane?
11 of those 12 jurors should never serve on a jury again. Fucking insane nutjobs.
Context matters.
The trial was never about if she killed the kids or not (everyone is in agreement she did it), it was about if she was legally insane when it occurred.
Certainly not everybody is in agreement that she did. Many people are blaming the husband.
Idk why you got downvoted for this. You didn’t say you blamed the husband, you just stated a fact.
Give all the shit surrounding him, yeah I entirely believe he manipulated things to go his way. Embezzling donations while skimping on the kid’s gravestone (singular) after he cremated them in defiance of local law? That piece of shit is endemic of America as it stands.
Some people are just contrarian
Being a contrarian is a huge red flag
Some people are just contrarian
Being a contrarian is a huge red flag
There is an actual condition called “Oppositional Defiant Disorder”. Some people will oppose authority no matter how valid it is.
Exactly. And a lot of that comes from unaddressed trauma as a child.
Real trauma, not TikTok trauma
Being a contrarian is a huge red flag
No it isn’t
I 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.
It was never about acquittal, it was about spending her life in prison, or a prison for the criminally insane. Your MAGA holdout blew it entirely, and got her released. Good job.
Once again, virtuosic incompetence at work.
You have no idea how jury selection works, obviously.
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.
Because we are wondering what went on. We know something weird must have happened, and the lone holdout probably isn’t going to find a camera. At the same time, the other jurors were pissed, and they want the world to know that this guy is to blame, not them.
How does it make the responsible jurors look bad? It makes the line holdout look bad.
That’s not as bad as the defense attorney making a public call to Trump for help. In Massachusetts.
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.
The legal standard is reasonable doubt. Jurors cannot be punished for their decision though.
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
No, cause explaining your reasoning just gives people something to argue with you about. I don’t even know why they deliberate. If it requires skmeone else tomconvince you, then it isn’t your opinion, it’s theirs.
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.
Tampering? Why? This isn’t some big trial with millions of corporate dollars on the line, or some important person’s freedom, or some politician’s power. This was just one sad woman who did a tragic thing, with no big outcome for anyone else. Who’s going to bankroll and operate a jury tampering scheme, and why?
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.
Sure, you can jump to the defense of this random guy, but by all accounts it sounds like he was just a sociopathic incel. Sometimes the guy everyone is saying is acting like a giant piece of shit asshole is in fact a giant piece of shit asshole and not some virtuous scrappy underdog.
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.
That will just give a license to arbitrarily remove jurors. There’s no way to do one without the other.
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.
Just to be clear for any idiots in the room, and there’s a lot in this particular room:
Yes, jurors have to follow the law. You will be instructed on what it is for your region.
What they can’t do is prove your decision was against the law unless you’re stupid enough to admit it.
Thank you, I’m going crazy in here watching stupid people pull shit out of their ass so confidently.
Like the idiot you responded to who thinks that there aren’t any legal rules to being a Juror. How are people upvoting such a stupid statement?
Yeah, a Juror has the ability to choose a verdict, and cannot be coerced into a specific verdict. However, deliberately choosing an unfitting verdict, such as insisting on guilt without evidence or while admitting reasonable doubt, is a violation of the oath you take as a Juror, and it can lead to being perjured.
The Juror in question admitted that there was reasonable doubt in the case, but refused to drop his guilty verdict. This was a direct violation of the law. You cannot legally acknowledge reasonable doubt, but insist on a guilty verdict. There are actually “wrong” choices by a juror. There was an attempt to remove this juror from the case because of his illegal conduct, but the judge decided letting the jury deadlock a third time for a mistrial would be better for some reason.
It’s important to note that if it were not for this openly MAGA, law-breaking juror, the rest of the jurors were locked in on acquittal because the evidence points to a psychotic episode, and not a deliberate act of malice.
Part of how jury nullification works is that jurors can’t be held accountable for the verdict. They can in theory be charged with perjury if it can be proven they lied under oath during voir dire, but that’s more of a threat than a reality. In a civil case it’s possible for a judge to set aside a verdict if there’s clearly no evidence, but that’s not possible for criminal charges.
deleted by creator
From what I was told during selection you have to be honest but you cannot be punished for your answers nor can a juror be punished for how they vote.
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 way jury instructions work it’s pretty hard to not justify your vote unless you have no intention of following the instructions. The guilty or not guilty decision is usually phrased in several yes or no questions. If you’re answering one differently than 11 other people, there’s a reason.
Fun fact: There are legal rules for being on a jury, your “opinion” notwithstanding.
The misogynistic MAGA activist on the Jury whom you are praising admitted that he had doubts on her guilt, but stuck with his guilty verdict anyway. That isn’t just illegal, it’s unconstitutional.
You cannot acknowledge the constitutional requirement for innocence, and then insist on guilt anyway while under oath as a Juror. It’s perjury.
And that’s why it’s a mistrial.
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.”
Coming soon, Judge Dredd.
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.
Not really. After high profile cases, jurors giving interviews is pretty common. Several jurors spoke about the OJ trial as well.
Imagine losing your job over it due to public backlash.
Buddy, if you lose your job for serving on a Jury, you’re gonna retire to your mansion after the lawsuit.
And the jury interviews are not mandatory. I honestly have no idea why these jurors are participating given how unhinged people are about this case. I would have kept my head down and gone the hell home once the case was over, rather than willingly hand my full name over to the media.
Buddy, if you lose your job for serving on a Jury, you’re gonna retire to your mansion after the lawsuit.
That’s only true in a country with a functioning justice system.
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.
Jury nullification in action.
That’s not what jury nullification is.
You’re right. I didn’t realize all 12 jurors need to agree to acquit a guilty person for it to count as jury nullification. I thought it means more generally “I don’t care what the law says, I will vote not guilty anyway”.
The lone juror was the guilty vote, and the “innocent” verdict in this case is “meaning she will go to the prison with grippy socks instead” which also isn’t nullification so you just didn’t know anything at all.
Good thing you know so much and can explain it in a condescending tone on the internet. Must feel great.
This was a mistrial not jury nullification. She can still be retried
It wouldn’t have been nullification either.
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.
The lone juror
deleted by creator
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?
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.
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.
John Oliver did a whole episode about “expert testimony”. I recommend watching it so that you don’t ask stupid questions like this again.
Tl:Dr: “Expert” isn’t a title or a credential that matters, and “expert testimony” is often just complete horseshit.
The expert in this case was a qualified and practicing psychologist, but if you looked it up first you wouldn’t make stupid statements.
Insurance companies have plenty of qualified and practicing doctors to say your prescribed treatment isn’t medically necessary.
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.
