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.
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
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.
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we weren’t there so this is right out of my ass, being bullied by eleven other people might have made him defensive and withdrawn.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.
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?
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.
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.
If you get convinced than your opinion changed and you now have a new opinion of your own.
But you are supposed to be forming an opinion based on what you saw in court. The whole point of their being 12 is that if all 12 are convinced then the person must be guilty. By letting people convince each other, all it takes is one very charismatic person to convince everyone. So then your jury is really the opinion of one.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yea, once you are placed on the jury, you have the right to vote “because I said so”
Coming soon, Judge Dredd.
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.
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.
First of all, didn’t praise him. Seems like you missed the multiple times in my response I pointed out I wasn’t making comment on the correctness of his decision. Whether you just missed it or are deliberately ignoring it for the sake of getting to be a dick online, I can’t tell.
Second, I dont know what he did or didn’t say (I didn’t follow the case, remember?), that’s his fault for saying anything about his decision. In fact, that’s what my entire post hinged on; the concept that a juror does not and should not be forced to divulge their reasoning. The ability for a juror to disagree with the group is what makes a jury work at all.
Whether or not he committed perjery in this instance is not relevant to my post, which was more a comment on how a juror must be free to disagree with the jury otherwise the whole thing falls apart.
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.
Might be a reason, but that doesn’t mean you have to divulge it. That’s the whole reason a jury works; each juror can come to their own conclusion. Tautologically that requires them to be able to decide differently than the rest of the group.
They don’t have to tell others outside the jury, but part of deliberation is telling the other jurors why you believe what you do.
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.
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.
Tribes. Just tribes.
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.
I mean, from what I’ve heard, I don’t think he makes the holdout look bad. The holdout, as it turns out, was voting guilty. The others were voting based on vibes and social media. Them outing themselves as protecting Lindsay Clancy… certainly a wild choice IMO. If my understanding is correct, It’s the same level as crazy as denying the Jan 6th insurrection. Or the Epstein files don’t exist or aren’t actually that important.
deleted by creator
That’s not as bad as the defense attorney making a public call to Trump for help. In Massachusetts.
deleted by creator
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?
Yeah, no the chance to remove a juror is lonnng past. There is nothing that can be done to them now.
Gotta say, I don’t like this. If you are on a JURY, you know a fucking Jury, I feel you should put your emotions aside and focus on the facts of the case.
The facts are that Lindsay Clancy showed clear signs of her mental state degrading, only really had pills pushed on her by her medical team, expressed concern to her husband about how she was going to harm the kids in December of 2022, and both her and her husband expressed how the medication was making her worse and worse to the point of suicidal intent up to the night of the incident.
For people like you and me who are not on the jury? An emotional response is okay. The brute fact is 3 children lost their lives, but if you are on the Jury and her fate is in your hand, you really do need to be cautious about this. You need to put facts over feelings. To me, this looks like an open and shut case of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. The facts point to it.
If this Juror really did not present anything to the contrary and went off vibes? That sucks. That really really sucks. And if he was browsing his phone in the room as stated here… WHY THE FUCK ARE PHONES ALLOWED IN THE DELIBERATION ROOM!? Was he betting on the case on Kalshi and fixing this to make money off it going to mistrial!? Was he looking at social media about this case!? Was he talking to people about this?!
This is an absolute failure on the Juror’s part and he failed at his civic duty.
I dont know why he keeps saying that like he’s owed evidence. Jurors arent required to present any evidence. This Dargie guy sounds like a whiner.
Some people are just contrarian
Being a contrarian is a huge red flag
Being a contrarian is a huge red flag
No it isn’t
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
“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.
Moron
Imbecile, see I can do that too
Troglodite
Misogynistic piece of shit should never have been on the jury
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.
Well, there was that whole trial. And everyone does agree she strangled her kids.
But didn’t the other 11 jurors vote not guilty by reason of insanity?
The lone juror
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.
The holdout was voting guilty. How is the 1 person voting guilty a “MAGA”. Honestly explain that. She killed those kids. Also, should MAGA be added to Godwin’s Law, because FFS.
Because MAGAs are sociopathic and stupid, and can’t understand that mental illness might explain the behavior.
Godwin’s Law has been proven to be outdated, by GODWIN himself. MAGA is a corrupt, treasonous, racist, misogynist, pedophilia cult of Domestic Terrorists, and is a genuine ACTIVE National Security Threat. It’s not some dumb conspiracy theory, and if you are trying to promote that concept, you’re a MAGA, too.
Lose the guilty/not guilty angle, she’s going to jail either way. He was insisting that she wasn’t legally insane when it happened. Despite a mountain of evidence.
You have no idea how jury selection works, obviously.
you dont either, ive been in pool a couple times, knowing how its done, its definitely not be randomoness.
The whole concept of being able to claim insanity as a defense comes from a time when people literally thought you could be possessed by demons.
Murdering children is an act of insanity. Always. That’s not a defense, it’s a given.
When evaluating the morality of an action, you must consider the causal and intentional facts.
Everything else, such as mental illness, either supervenes on these causal and intentional facts or it is irrelevant.
- Did the person kill innocent children? Yes.
- Did they intend to do so? Also yes.
Whether that person subsumed alcohol or whether they are mentally ill simply does not matter except insofar as it relates to the two questions above.
If you disagree with any specific sentence above, please tell me which one. All of the replies are currently non-sequiturs and red herrings.
You are trying to attach rational arguments to a totally emotional opinion.
The law requires that the defendant had formed criminal intent when they committed their offense. Shooting someone in the head is murder, but if you killed that person to stop them from killing someone else, then there was no criminal intent, and it’s not murder.
Yes, she killed her kids, and yes, she knew she was killing her kids, but she was also in the grip of a terrible psychosis, that prevented her from forming criminal intent.
And it was never about releasing her, it was always about the type of place she would reside. A prison, or a prison hospital. A person with your type of thinking overplayed their hand, and got her released instead.
This isn’t a “rational argument”. The “not guilty by reason of insanity” defense has nothing to do with this case. That standard doesn’t even exist in Massachusetts where this case was tried.
she was also in the grip of a terrible psychosis
So she says. I mean https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/post-partum-psychosis/ would suggest… probably not.
Also, drunk people or people on drugs… who aren’t aware of their actions… is the implication there that they’re not responsible because they were prevented from forming criminal intent? 3 children were hunted down and murdered. Then a staged suicide.
deleted by creator
You’ve clearly never been around a person deep in the throes of postpartum psychosis. I have, and it was fucking terrifying. There is no demon possession…so stop going on about that like its some gotcha. It is a condition where the mother can have a full mental break and fully believe things are happening that in no way, shape or form are happening. And the reactions to then are wildly intense
This is a legal case, not an ethics case. Though that debate has it’s merits; just not here, talking about the legal ramifications of the killings.
deleted by creator
You’ve been walking in circles on this in every reply. No one thinks what happened is right. No one is defending her actions.
The debate you’ve been dancing around is whether or not she was criminally insane at the time. Not whether or not she was innocent. And going off about how insane derives from demonic possession is not relevant, not pertinent, and a bad faith argument
deleted by creator
The point is she wasn’t in a right state of mind when it happened. But I’m glad we have legal experts like you to serve on juries.
deleted by creator
Massachusetts doesn’t even have a “not guilty by reason of insanity” defense on the books at all, so this was a whole lot of words to say absolutely nothing. It’s amazing how many people are so confident to say extremely stupid things about this case.
Under Massachusetts state law (specifically known as the McHoul standard), a person is not criminally responsible if, at the moment of the offense, a mental disease or defect left them without the “substantial capacity” to do one of two things:
- Appreciate wrongfulness: Understand that what they were doing was morally or legally wrong.
- Conform conduct: Control their actions to align with the law, even if they recognized the act was wrong.
The McHoul standard was decided in 1967, and the law makes no mention of “possession by demons”.
deleted by creator
Okay you have to understad that we are trying to have a civilisation here.
Your point of view is not consistent.
If you want a murderer punished like you would a “rabid animal” because we are just animals and don’t need further understanding than there is no reason to object murder in general.
deleted by creator
A lot of crime is evidence of insanity, from narcissism, megalomania; really, all homicide is rooted in insanity.
We lock those people the hell up, though.
No one gets a cushy institutionalization unless their docs all agree. Into genpop until then.
Cushy institutionalization? You’ve got some wild misunderstandings of how any of this works. It’s prison, with prison conditions. Nothing fucking cushy about it, but I’m guessing you’re far more interested in punishment than rehabilitation.
I’m certainly not interested in rehabilitating child murderers. Just get them out of society forever.
And this is why the world thinks us US Americans are belligerent and cruel by nature.
I’m fine with being belligerent and cruel to people who harm children. If you have to be taught that that’s wrong then there’s no place for you in this world. We have more than enough people that need help as it is.
Hey, everybody! Look at this guy who can only be kind to one person at a time!
I can be kind to lots of people. I’m just not doing it for those who by their own actions have rendered themselves undeserving of it. That energy is better spent elsewhere.
