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
[–] 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child)
    • Do rabid animals understand the wrongness of biting children? So what?
    • Are human beings animals?

    Congratulations! You’ve graduated to having a consistent normative view.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent