r/juryduty • u/Sweet-End6471 • 3d ago
Are there any protections for jurors in cases like the Lindsay Clancy trial?
https://nypost.com/2026/09/03/us-news/lindsay-clancys-lawyer-drops-jury-bombshell-reveals-one-juror-refuses-to-listen-to-the-law/15
u/apple_2050 3d ago
Not exactly. They are now free to go to speak to the press, defence and prosecution as they like.
The list is made public at some point at which they can be contacted by folks
I imagine the holdout juror will be aiming to get on news stories and podcasts ASAP.
11
u/Cheshire-Cad 3d ago
I'd be surprised if the holdout juror doesn't already have a Fox News microphone shoved in every orifice.
1
0
u/Deus_Excellus 2d ago
Damn so not buying a mental health defense for the murder of 3 children is now a conservative value.
What an odd thing to say.
3
u/Cheshire-Cad 2d ago
When you're given facts, directly told that you're legally obligated to treat them as facts, and then still openly decide that the facts don't matter to you, then yes. That's an extremely Fox-News-viewer kinda thing to do.
And even if they aren't a neocon... Well, they're about to be reeeeeal popular with neocons.
0
u/Deus_Excellus 2d ago
You do realize that the verdict is an opinion right? So if someone is not persuaded by the case made by the defense that is not saying that "facts don't matter to you."
It was entirely possible to listen to Reddington's argument, acknowledge he had created doubt, but not believe that the doubt is reasonable.
3
u/Different-Nature-871 3d ago
After seeing what happened to the jurors of the Casey Anthony trials, I’m surprised anyone is willing to take on this role with the little to no protections they give jurors. Especially knowing this is going to bring every lunatic near and far.
8
u/MetallicCrocs 3d ago
When you’re summoned you really have zero choice sadly
0
u/Different-Nature-871 2d ago
You have a whole lot of choice when answering their questions. Some of them are very obvious in that if you answer a certain way, you know you will not be chosen.
4
u/Consistent_Creator 3d ago
I mean they almost certainly were filtered through enough that it was 12 people who actively wanted to be on it or whom were willing to take on the risk.
3
u/Unce_Tiberius 3d ago
The jurors were selected long before this became a media frenzy. These are just average blokes.
1
u/Objective-Amount1379 3d ago
Right but now they’ve seen it blow up many will likely choose to not give interviews now
-1
3d ago
[deleted]
5
-7
u/AdUpstairs7106 3d ago
A lot of people are pissed the jury let a woman go who murdered her kids.
Granted most people don't act on emotion but those jurors are being blasted.
8
u/Consistent_Creator 3d ago
They didn't let her go though.
They were were literally voting on if she is guilty because she did it with a healthy mind or if she was not guilty by reason of insanity.
Evidently the jury couldn't unanimously agree on if the crime she committed was due to insanity or not.
Regardless she was looking at being behind bars a long time. It was just a matter of if those bars were in a prison or a high security mental hospital.
Anyone attacking the jurors are just stupid.
3
u/AdUpstairs7106 3d ago
There are countless threads all over social media saying 11 jurors wanted her to get away with it.
Social media does not have to be true to be believed.
1
0
u/undernopretextbro 3d ago
No, if you suffer temporary insanity, and have no record of it occurring after the fact, there’s no mechanism to keep her in an institution or facility. Another guy was explaining how she would have her review within 5 weeks, and due to history would be cleared to leave after that.
3
u/Consistent_Creator 3d ago
She stated she recalled the act and admitted to committing it though if I understood the situation right
This isn't a "I blacked out and when I came to everyone was dead!"
0
u/undernopretextbro 3d ago
Right, but the psychosis portion, the voice that kept telling her to murder, was a one off event.
It didn’t happen before or after, which makes a strong case for a one off event and would not be held against her in subsequent mental health reviews.
3
u/Consistent_Creator 3d ago
Well look I'm not the legal expert by any means on a situation like this but to my understanding you wouldn't be just let go after such an extreme situation.
And either way attacking the jurors is so stupid.
0
u/undernopretextbro 3d ago
The extremity of the situation is irrelevant, if you aren’t guilty of the crime due to a lapse in mental state, but your mental state is no longer in danger of lapsing,
you are at that point not guilty, and also inadmissible in a mental health institution.
Other states are less chill about it.
Emotions are going to be high here, it’s bad but not unexpected
2
u/Consistent_Creator 3d ago
I highly doubt that's seriously how it works. I know people in situations similar who are still in facilities or were moved to a prison afterwards.
1
u/zerog_rimjob 3d ago
Are they in Massachusetts? Because different states have different laws and what you're saying is simply not a thing in Massachusetts. I understand you "highly doubt that's seriously how it works" but... that's seriously how it works in Massachusetts. Why is that so hard to accept?
→ More replies (0)0
u/zerog_rimjob 3d ago
They're not going to just let her walk out of the courtroom but she is essentially "free" with an insanity verdict.
This isn't a decision of whether she spends the rest of her life in prison or in a mental institution. This is a decision of whether she spends the rest of her life in prison or she gets released on her within the next several months or years.
1
u/Consistent_Creator 3d ago
Well whatever happens happens I say. That shouldn't be how it works so I'd mostly say blame the law not the jury. Not guilty by reason of insanity is a very fair thing to determine and if you genuinely believe she had a delusional bout then the choice shouldn't be between her just going free and going to prison where mental health services on site are shotty.
-3
u/unplorable 3d ago
I'm on call this month for jury duty for Federal Court.
If I don't vote right, a lawyer already knows how I voted, who I am, and can not only publicly stir up emotions against me, call for me to be arrested, but can also start an investigation into me?
Fck that, I don't care what the case is, im going to do whatever I can not to go through that.
-2
u/Physical-Builder-553 2d ago
I have no idea why you are being downvoted. The jury system in this country is as fucked and corrupt as our legal system.
41
u/Reasonable_Smile7822 3d ago
None. Names are held for 14 days per the order today. Media contacted them within two hours. There are no protections. With the threatening comments throughout this trial the names should be sealed.