Lindsay Clancy is going to have another day in court. The jurors who wanted to find her not guilty are now having their 15 minutes of media fame – and smashing the assumed narrative.

When the trial ended last week with a hung jury, the theatrics of defense lawyer Kevin Reddington had signaled the court – and by extension, the media – that there was a single holdout juror that refused to go along with the verdict, whom he tried to get removed, but the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said no. As Professor Jonathan Turley put it, it was “Twelve Angry Men,” but in reverse.

After declaring that the 11-1 mistrial was “no time to gloat,” Reddington bragged repeatedly about “crushing” District Attorney Tim Cruz, whom he also attacked. He insisted that, in the trial, no one said a single negative thing about his client as a mother — ignoring that little matter of the three young children whom she had strangled to death, one by one.

But it was his attack on the holdout juror that was a breathtaking abandonment of restraint and decency. Reddington knows it is very likely that the name of this juror (he has already been identified as one of only three males on the jury) will eventually be uncovered by Internet sleuths. He effectively put a target on the back of a juror who committed the unpardonable sin of not being convinced by his arguments.

The fact that this is one of the three male jurors only ramped up the rage. This case prompted a striking gender divide between men and women, with many women expressing sympathy for Clancy and anger at the system for failing her.

For Reddington and many viewers, the hung jury was less “Twelve Angry Men” and more like “One Angry Man.” Indeed, in addition to attacking the juror, women outside of the courthouse heckled Cruz as he tried to speak to the press, shouting that he “only cares about the three children. What about the Mom?”

Reddington followed up by saying that Cruz really did not care about the children (because he looked down to read their names). He also accused the holdout jurors of wasting the time of the jury, complaining “that guy stole seven weeks from those jurors.”

It was an ironic twist on the 1957 classic. In that movie, Juror number eight (Henry Fonda) was repeatedly attacked for “wasting time” and not yielding to the majority — until he ultimately convinced all of his peers.

Reddington may indeed need to be censured for his comments about the juror (which he then slightly walked back later, saying that though he thinks the juror wasted everyone’s time, he respects his right to hold out), but the rest of the jury is now taking their story to the media. Lisa covered this for us earlier this week, complaining about how the holdout juror could not get past the fact that Lindsay Clancy murdered her children.

Clancy juror Paula Devlin then gave an interview to Gayle King on CBS’s morning show on Friday, and absolutely turned the narrative upside down by revealing that the holdout juror was the lone black man on the jury.

Suddenly, the mental imagery took a sharp U-turn on social media, especially as Devlin admitted that this juror was “attacked” during deliberations for not agreeing with the rest of them.

This is incredible. The lone juror keeping Lindsay Clancy from getting away with child killing is a black man being bossed around by a bunch of white women. Amazing. https://t.co/YVrJQJjWac

— Corey Walker 🇺🇸 (@CoreyWriting) September 11, 2026

Remember the earlier interviews of the Clancy jurors complaining that this one man wouldn’t listen to them? It takes on a whole new dimension with this information, doesn’t it?

Well, it turns out that at least one media outlet in the Boston area is ready to *wink wink nudge nudge* dox this juror for refusing to agree that Lindsay Clancy was not guilty. Sue O’Connell, who calls herself a “commentator” and works for NBC affiliate in Boston, was eagerly soliciting comments from the Clancy jury via X. On Friday afternoon, she announced that there was an “exclusive” scoop on the holdout juror that would be aired on her station. In short, the station was going to reveal some salacious information about the juror, even though they can’t reveal his name.

EXCLUSIVE: The holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial had a history of domestic violence allegations, the NBC10 Boston Investigators have learned through court documents and interviews with family members. Read the full investigation here. https://t.co/qSjIiU8Og8

— NBC10 Boston (@NBC10Boston) September 11, 2026

Court documents and interviews with family members reveal a history of domestic violence allegations. We discovered a pending eviction case tied to months of not paying rent.

The NBC10 Boston Investigators also found an active restraining order against him, while he was listening to evidence in the case.

Those details raise questions about the jury selection process and how the Plymouth County resident was picked for the high-profile case that ended in a mistrial.

NBC10 Boston has repeatedly attempted to contact the juror at home, where his landlord is currently trying to evict him.

We are not identifying him at this time because he has chosen not to speak publicly and the jury list is currently impounded. However, we wanted to share the details that experts say should have raised red flags about how he filled out his juror questionnaire.

The standard juror questionnaire in Massachusetts clearly asks if someone has been arrested, charged with a crime or been served with a court order. All of those boxes should have been checked by this juror.

NBC10 Boston has reached out to the Plymouth District Attorney’s Office to ask about our findings, along with Clancy’s defense team. Both sides declined to comment on Friday afternoon.

Juror questionnaires are not public records, so it’s unclear if the document in question still exists or if it was destroyed in the wake of the mistrial. Because of that, NBC10 Boston cannot confirm how the juror filled out the questionnaire.

Now, the reason why neither the prosecution or the defense wants to comment is because they had a chance during voir dire to look through the questionnaires and interview the jurors. If this juror did answer all the questions honestly, then neither side can complain now. (And let’s be honest, they really wanted a “person of color” on this jury for the optics.) The NBC Boston story admits that charges were dropped against him, so he was never convicted of a crime. Not to mention that they are running a huge risk by releasing this information without official confirmation by the court that whomever they are investigating IS the correct person. And why is this even a news story in the first place, except to intimidate and dox him?

These lunatics are going after a random Black juror because he didn’t decide the case in the way they wanted.

It undermines the entire jury system to do this, but they don’t care.

At a responsible news org, this would lead to several firings.

— AG (@AGHamilton29) September 11, 2026

And even if they got the right person, they only care about this juror because he refused to let Lindsay Clancy off the hook. Serving on a jury is a civic duty, not something he volunteered to do. And how interesting that Kevin Reddington is now trying to just get the case dismissed, claiming that it would be “double jeopardy” to try Clancy again.

Reddington told “CBS Mornings” he will present a motion to dismiss on Sept. 29 at a previously scheduled status hearing.

“It will be a motion to dismiss based on what’s called double jeopardy grounds, because there’s no … manifest necessity,” Reddington said. “You have to have a manifest necessity to declare a mistrial for obvious reasons — the invested time that the jurors put into it, the court, the staff, the defendant, the prosecution, everybody.”

Between Reddington’s attempt to get the case dismissed on a long shot, and the nameless doxxing by this NBC affiliate, it seems like the defense is trying to force the prosecution into offering a plea deal. Who would want to serve on a jury and find Lindsay Clancy guilty if this is what they have to look forward to?

At this point you have to assume the defense is working with the media to destroy the reputation of the black guy who voted to convict. He’s collateral damage. The real goal is to send a message to prosecutors to drop the case, and to intimidate future potential jurors. https://t.co/kOd3kU28kp

— FischerKing (@FischerKing64) September 11, 2026

Besides the fact that the juror should get a lawyer and sue the NBC station, the point has been made. The jury pool is now tainted by the fact that juror identity cannot be protected when loose lips from other jurors start outing the people who disagreed with them. And Massachusetts is not exactly a big state. The prosecution should ask for a change of venue and sequester the next jury. But at this point, nobody should be surprised if a plea deal is announced.

Featured image via succo on Pixabay, cropped, Pixabay license