The Lindsay Clancy case was already disturbing enough. Then the jurors started talking.
As I reported at RedState, juror Paula Devlin made a remarkable admission about the deliberations that ended with an 11-1 deadlock and a mistrial.
Rather than describing the case strictly in terms of the evidence, Clancy’s mental state, and the deaths of her three children, Devlin said jurors believed they had an opportunity to make things “better for other women.”
That immediately raised a much bigger question: Was this jury deciding the fate of Lindsay Clancy, or trying to advance a cause?
Devlin’s comments were particularly striking because she spoke about the case as a potential “turning point.” My argument at RedState was simple: Whatever one thinks about postpartum mental illness or the insanity defense, a criminal trial cannot become a vehicle for advancing feminism, raising awareness, or sending a broader social message. Jurors are supposed to decide the case in front of them.
And then Devlin doubled down.
Responding to criticism of her earlier remarks, she denied that bias drove the verdict but told Fox News Digital that jurors understood they had a chance to “get a conversation started” about women’s mental health and postpartum-related illnesses.
