After seven days of deliberation, 11 of the 12 jurors agreed that Lindsay Clancy was not criminally responsible for strangling her three children to death.
New York Post reports that three jurors, including the foreperson, have come out publicly in an interview with NBC 10 Boston to talk about the case.
Some on the jury believed that Clancy was criminally guilty, but then changed their mind as the case went on, except for one, they say.
According to the jurors, the 12th juror, one of the three men, was close to finding her not guilty by reason of insanity and even admitted he had reasonable doubt.
Juror Kellie Farina said, however, that he could not be persuaded.
“We read to him, on numerous occasions, the definition of reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan’s instruction,” Farina said. “But he had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.”
Legal expert Jenna Ellis tells “Todays Issues” on AFR that Farina doesn't realize what she is admitting there.
“The trial itself, the actual trial, didn't even matter. It was how much you empathized with Lindsay Clancy, how much they liked the defense attorney, how much they didn't prefer the prosecutor, what they thought based on their emotions rather than the law and the facts,” Ellis states.
The outcome of the case, she says, is a scathing indictment of our culture.
“This is where we get, as a society, when you have toxic empathy, when you excuse and justify anyone's immoral, evil actions,” Ellis says.
Sure, Clancy may have been misunderstood or had a tragic back story or mental health issues, she says.
“There may be extraneous other factors — there always are, but that doesn't excuse the criminal responsibility of the act itself,” Ellis states.
The American criminal justice system, she says, is founded on the principle that defendants have a right to a jury of their peers.
“That idea is only valid and can only work out practically if you have reasonable, responsible people in society,” Ellis says.
