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.
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we weren’t there so this is right out of my ass, being bullied by eleven other people might have made him defensive and withdrawn.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?
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.