And so it begins.
— Bridget Ayers (@BridgetAyers) September 12, 2026
Another Lindsay Clancy juror reportedly has an assault and battery charge in her past. She also had social media posts during the trial.
She put herself out there publicly after the mistrial, so it isn’t surprising that people started scrutinizing her social… https://t.co/sLZylqEwuq
Another Lindsay Clancy juror reportedly has an assault and battery charge in her past. She also had social media posts during the trial.
She put herself out there publicly after the mistrial, so it isn’t surprising that people started scrutinizing her social accounts. But absent what happened with the holdout juror, I doubt anyone would have gone much further than that.
Now it’s open season.
Internet sleuths are going to start digging into the backgrounds of the other jurors because the media decided it was appropriate to publicize one juror’s private life in an effort to discredit his vote.
I’ve already written about how this could taint a potential retrial in the Lindsay Clancy case, but I think the consequences could reach much further.
What prospective juror is going to watch this unfold and think, “Yes, I’d love to serve on a trial that could get media attention”?
Do your civic duty, sit through weeks of testimony, deliberate, cast your vote, and then risk having strangers comb through your public records, finances, family disputes, social-media accounts and personal life.
That is a terrible precedent for the jury system.
Shame on you
@NBC10Boston
@sueOC_nbcbostonThe Tainting of the Next Lindsay Clancy Jury - Vote Guilty, Lose Your Privacy & Reputation
Perhaps we need to start talking about gag orders after mistrials until a decision about retrial has been made. Because what is happening in the Lindsay Clancy case is insane.
We have a defense attorney making inflammatory accusations about the lone holdout juror.
We have jurors going to the media and presenting their interpretations of what happened in deliberations almost as established legal fact.
And now we have media outlets digging into the holdout juror’s private history, reporting dismissed allegations and financial problems, doxxing him, and attempting to contact him at his home.
How does that not affect the next jury pool? More importantly, what message does it send to future jurors?
Serve on a high-profile case. Vote your conscience. Disagree with other jurors. And if your vote produces a mistrial, your private life will be broadcast to the world.
That creates a chilling effect. A future juror may think twice about standing alone if doing so could mean reporters at the door, relatives being interviewed, old court records resurfacing, and accusations being dissected online.
That is dangerous for the jury system. The vetting of jurors belongs in voir dire. Criminal history, conflicts, pending matters, bias, questionnaire answers, those are issues for the judge and attorneys to examine. If something material was concealed or the vetting process failed, the court has mechanisms to deal with it.
That is very different from trying a juror in the court of public opinion because people dislike his vote.
And meanwhile, potential jurors in Plymouth County and surrounding areas are being exposed to a very specific narrative; that the person who voted to convict Lindsay Clancy was arrogant, narcissistic, unreasonable, lawless, or somehow morally defective.
Think about what that does before a retrial even begins. A prospective juror now knows exactly what happened to the last person who stood alone and voted guilty.
I thought the biggest threat coming out of this trial was the precedent it could set for future mental-illness defenses.
Maybe I was wrong. Maybe the bigger threat is what every future juror is learning from what happened afterward.
Vote with the majority and go home. Stand alone, vote your conscience, and risk having your character, your past, your finances, your family and your reputation put on trial next.
Replies
Yup, go along with the lunes or they will crucify you!