Lindsay Clancy Holdout Juror Goes PUBLIC — What He Revealed Stuns Everyone
New Details Emerge On Lone Lindsay Clancy Holdout Juror
New details have emerged about the lone holdout juror in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial.
A media personality who says he interviewed the man reported that the juror is black and identifies as a Republican, adding that he believes his conservative views may have contributed to the backlash he has faced since the mistrial.
Michael Marcel of Fugitive TV said he spoke by phone with the juror, whose refusal to join the other 11 members of the panel in supporting an insanity acquittal resulted in a hung jury earlier this month.
According to Marcel, the juror described himself as a black Republican with conservative political views.
“He’s a Republican. He is a black Republican. He has conservative views,” Marcel said while recounting the conversation. Marcel said the juror believes he may have been targeted in part because of those views.
The juror’s political affiliation has not been independently confirmed, and the juror has not publicly made the claim in a recorded interview reviewed by major news organizations.
Marcel also said the juror characterized several fellow panel members as politically liberal and claimed he felt pressured during deliberations by jurors who had already decided Clancy should be found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.
According to Marcel’s account, the juror said eight members of the panel favored an insanity acquittal at the beginning of deliberations, two favored a guilty verdict and two remained undecided.
The jury eventually moved to an 11-1 split in favor of acquitting Clancy on grounds that she was not criminally responsible when she killed her three children.
Clancy admitted strangling her children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months — inside the family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in January 2023.
Her attorneys argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and could not legally be held criminally responsible for the killings. Prosecutors disputed that defense and maintained that Clancy understood what she was doing.
After nearly 40 hours of deliberations, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on Sept. 4 when the jury reported that it could not reach a unanimous verdict.
Several jurors subsequently spoke publicly about the deliberations and criticized the holdout, accusing him of refusing to properly apply the legal standard governing criminal responsibility.
The Clancy Lone Holdout is a black Republican who said the other jurors were Democrats and he believes he’s being targeted for being conservative. pic.twitter.com/omjvTHHC4Y
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) September 16, 2026
Other reporting has offered a more complicated picture of the jury-room dispute, with at least one juror saying strong personalities existed on both sides and that some dissenting jurors felt attacked during deliberations.
The holdout and his family have since faced intense scrutiny.
His brother told the New York Post that the family, Haitian Catholic immigrants, had been forced into hiding because of harassment and unwanted attention following the mistrial. He also rejected speculation that the juror’s religious beliefs dictated his decision, saying his brother based his position on the evidence presented at trial.
Public attention intensified after reports surfaced concerning domestic violence allegations in the juror’s past, including a 2021 assault and battery case that was later dismissed and a restraining order obtained by a relative.
Those disclosures have prompted questions about the jury-selection process, although the allegations do not establish that the juror was legally disqualified from serving.
The reaction became so intense that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis publicly offered the juror what he called “asylum” in Florida, while criticizing efforts to expose details about his personal life.
A fundraiser established for the juror has also attracted substantial donations from people who say he is being unfairly targeted for refusing to change his vote.
Judge Sullivan has since ordered the names of the jurors sealed indefinitely, citing privacy and safety concerns surrounding the high-profile case.
Clancy’s legal team, meanwhile, is attempting to prevent prosecutors from trying her again. Her attorneys have enlisted Martin Weinberg, who previously represented Karen Read, to help pursue a motion seeking dismissal of the charges on double-jeopardy and other grounds.
Clancy is scheduled to return to court Sept. 29, when her defense is expected to press its effort to end the prosecution rather than face a second trial.
Letitia 'No One's Above the Law' James Just Got Sued And You Won't Stop Clapping
Letitia ‘No One’s Above the Law’ James Just Got Sued And You Won’t Stop Clapping
New York Attorney General Letitia James loves to sermonize that “No one is above the law,” but her record shows she really means “No one named Trump is above my political agenda.” Her entire campaign was a single-issue crusade built on the promise to “Get Trump,” and she delivered by filing a bizarre, victimless “fraud” case against him that even the banks involved openly rejected. Not one financial institution claimed harm. Not one lender said they wouldn’t do business with him again.
But that didn’t stop Judge Arthur Engoron—whose bias was obvious from the bench—from imposing an eye-watering, politically convenient fine of nearly half a billion dollars. It was so grotesquely disproportionate that an appeals court finally tossed it in August, delivering a much-needed reality check to James’s lawfare spectacle.
That’s Letitia James in a nutshell—always pushing the ethical limits, always using the weight of her office to intimidate anyone she marks as a political foe. Bullying isn’t an unfortunate byproduct of her approach; it is her approach.
So it’s hardly shocking that a school board chair in New York is now suing the attorney general, accusing James of threatening to oust board members who refused to bow to the progressive orthodoxy on allowing biological men into women’s sports:
The alleged threats came in a “guidance letter” [from James] that warned of the removal of any school board member who uses the wrong pronoun for a trans person, or if they allow students to publicly speak out at school board meetings about their fears and discomfort with student trans athletes using the wrong locker room for their biological sex.
A plaintiff in the suit, Massapequa Union Free School District Board Chair Kerry Wachter, alleged she was told that James’ office instructed her to mute and dismiss any board meeting speaker that expressed views opposing trans athletes in girls’ locker rooms and sports.
Massapequa Union Free School District Board Chair Kerry Wachter, alleged she was told that James' office instructed her to mute and dismiss any board meeting speaker that expressed views opposing trans athletes in girls' locker rooms and sports.
Wachter says James’ intimidation tactics are designed to intimidate her and others into silence:
“They’re saying if we allow this discussion in our board meetings, she can come in and remove us from the board,” Wachter told Fox News Digital. “They want me to stop public comment and stop them from speaking.”
Wachter added that trans students were not being directly named in any board meetings, and conversations were only based around the feelings and concerns of female students.
James claimed that school board members can be removed when “they willfully neglect their duty or violate legal protections for students in their districts.” She went on to add that the state’s Dignity for All Students Act (DASA) bars harassment and bullying.
Nevertheless, Attorney Kim Hermann from the Southeastern Legal Foundation has a note for James – There is an important constitutional principle known as the First Amendment.
“The First Amendment here reigns true, and so whether or not you have these state laws, a state cannot come in and just erase the First Amendment out of the Constitution,” Hermann said, per Fox News. “Whether or not statements and discussions about transgender and these different policies actually violate those state laws is absolutely irrelevant for what we’re talking about in this lawsuit.
James has shown time and again that she’s not an impartial public servant but a partisan enforcer, eager to weaponize her office against anyone who lands on her enemies list. She doesn’t just stretch her authority — she twists it into a political bludgeon.
If there’s any justice left in New York, this lawsuit will stick and finally force some accountability. Frankly, it’s long past time someone pushed back.
