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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 days ago (7 children)

This is strange, we know there was expert testimony that Clancy was not suffering psychosis. Did the jurors simply forget that testimony or was there further conflicting testimony that actually cast doubt?

The public reaction and copycat killing are disturbing to say the least.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    John Oliver did a whole episode about "expert testimony". I recommend watching it so that you don't ask stupid questions like this again.

    Tl:Dr: "Expert" isn't a title or a credential that matters, and "expert testimony" is often just complete horseshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    This is strange, we know there was expert testimony that Clancy was not suffering psychosis

    My understanding is that the prosecution expert said that she hadn't given her doctors reason to suspect she was experiencing psychosis.

    Ie, he didn't say that she wasn't psychotic when she murdered her kids.

    The expert then conceded a lot of points to the defence about how psychosis could have set in quickly.

    But I might not be recalling properly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment