The Lindsay Clancy Jury Rabbit Hole Just Keeps Getting Deeper

A legacy media outlet may be in a bit of a bind after an investigation targeted just one of the jurors from the Lindsay Clancy murder trial — the lone holdout who voted to convict.

NBC News affiliate NBC10 in Boston published an exclusive on Friday outlining their investigation into the one juror, laying out a number of their findings and suggesting that it was possible that he should not have been allowed to serve on the jury.

Citing court documents and interviews with members of the juror’s family, NBC10 reported that he had been accused of domestic violence and that there was an active restraining order against him — and that his current landlord was in the process of evicting him for nonpayment of rent.

According to the report, the juror was accused by a nephew of grabbing his then-wife by the throat in 2021; the couple divorced after the incident. The criminal charges against him were later dropped. The restraining order was reportedly taken out by that same nephew, who said that the juror had punched him and threatened him for calling the police about the first incident.

“Those details raise questions about the jury selection process,” the outlet reported.

“I don’t see how they would’ve allowed him to be a member of this jury,” NBC10 Boston’s chief legal analyst Michael Coyne said, noting that jurors in Massachusetts have to answer questions about whether they’ve previously been arrested, charged with a crime, or served with a court order. “I don’t see how, if those questions had been answered correctly, one side or the other would’ve taken the chance with allowing him to be seated.”

It is unclear whether juror questionnaires are retained after the trial, so it may not be possible to determine whether or not those questions were answered truthfully.

But according to Massachusetts law, the charges that were later dropped would not have kept him off the jury. Only having a felony conviction within the last seven years — or pending felony charges — would have barred the juror from service.

A number of critics also pointed out the fact that Massachusetts state law prohibits the intimidation and harassment of witnesses, jurors, and others involved in legal proceedings in the state.

According to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268, Section 13B, the section of the statute that covers the crime of intimidating or retaliating against witnesses, jurors, and other court officials:

(b) Whoever willfully, either directly or indirectly: (i) threatens, attempts or causes physical, emotional or economic injury or property damage to . . . or (iii) misleads, intimidates or harasses another person who is a . . . (C) . . . juror . . . with the intent to or with reckless disregard for the fact that it may . . . punish, harm or otherwise retaliate against any such person described in this section for such person or such person’s family member’s participation in any of the proceedings described in this section, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 10 years or by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2 ½ years or by a fine of not less than $1,000 or more than $5,000 or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The statute covers both intimidation during the legal proceedings in question and harassment or retaliation after the fact.

NBC10 Boston does not appear to have launched investigations into any of the remaining jurors.

Several other members of the jury — along with defense attorney Kevin Reddington — have spoken out since the trial, and all have accused the lone holdout juror of failing to properly consider the facts of the case.

More from this network:
Domains for Sale · GOTPeople.org · TheDSAPlatform · The Truth About Socialism

Donate to GOTPeople.org