Jurors serving on high-profile trials might think better of speaking publicly about their deliberations, no matter how enticing a minute of fleeting fame might seem. From what I’ve seen from chatty jurors in the Lindsay Clancy trial, the lone holdout who caused the mistrial wasn’t the only one missing the point. In fact, he may have been the only one who got it.
Several jurors have spoken out — three during a coffee-klatch-style interview with NBC10 Boston. One of those three, Paula Devlin, also appeared on “CBS Mornings” with co-host Gayle King on Friday. Half the country probably knows about the trial and is understandably curious to learn more. Just as likely, the jurors are eager to vent, engaging in a sort of public talk therapy after several weeks of grueling testimony and the relentless horror of Clancy’s killing of her three children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months.
The jurors in the NBC10 Boston interview seemed to be more focused on personalities and styles of lawyers and witnesses. In the CBS interview, Devlin gave details about the other members of the panel. At first they were more divided, she said, with two inclined toward a murder verdict, two undecided, and the others tilting toward the not guilty by reason of insanity verdict. We learned from defense attorney Kevin Reddington that the holdout juror was a man. Thanks to Devlin, we now know that he was Black and in his 30s.
So much for the anonymity he had undoubtedly hoped to protect — and was entitled to. It isn’t hard to single out a Black juror when everyone else is White. His refusal to join the others in an acquittal led to a mistrial on Sept. 4.
During the NBC10 Boston interview, juror Kellie Farina explained the holdout’s refusal to join the rest: “He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.”
I know just how he felt. But what were the others thinking?
Welp, they really liked Reddington’s sense of humor. They said he was entertaining and arrogant. Neither quality seemed more important than the other. He was definitely arrogant — bullying in several instances — but that’s showbiz. One woman said Reddington was so humorous that she had to cover her mouth, presumably to stifle a giggle, which she demonstrated for the camera. I kept waiting for someone to come around with a tray and serve crumpets and tea.
The jurors were also critical of prosecutors for being “harsh.” I’ll admit the prosecutors were lacking in charm, but I hadn’t thought to appraise their delivery. The state’s attorneys were certainly serious, appropriately so.
Team Not Guilty further praised Reddington for showing compassion for his client. What would they expect from her lawyer? They were especially appreciative that Reddington brought in witnesses who praised the defendant as a wonderful mother. That’s nice. But she wasn’t so wonderful on Jan. 24, 2023, was she, when she sent her husband, Patrick Clancy, on a round of errands to get him out of the house before she strangled their children.
Though Patrick Clancy was the prosecution’s witness, he, too, was deemed “compassionate” toward his former wife and helpful to the defense. The jurors noted that he never spoke negatively of his children’s mother. These juror observations, though telling, fail to enlighten. A long, fact-filled trial surely provided more than superficial impressions. But then, you know what they say about public speakers: People won’t remember what you say, but they’ll remember how you make them feel.
I hesitate to praise the discretion of the jurors who’ve kept their own counsel. For all I know, they’re busy signing book contracts and keeping the best stuff for their pub date. I’m sure television bookers are feverishly working on them for upcoming interviews.
Meanwhile, poor Lone Juror, whoever he is. That he may have been hung up on the vicious killings seems to me wholly healthy. Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible for what she did would be almost impossible given so much conflicting testimony from so many witnesses. Jurors aren’t mind readers, yet they were being asked to get inside Lindsay Clancy’s head.
The problem with jurors talking is this: Like movie stars who lose their luster once they start talking as themselves, jurors often shed their gravitas outside the courtroom. For the jury system to work, we need to think of jurors as wise and circumspect, which too often is not the case. As my father often reminded me growing up: It’s better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and confirm the suspicion.
The post What the Clancy trial’s chatty jurors get wrong appeared first on Washington Post.
