We have no idea how deeply the Lindsay Clancy jury has damaged the concept of a trial by jury, but it's profound and bodes poorly for the future of our already broken system. Not only did the nurses on the jury fail to follow rules by trying to introduce their so-called "expertise" during deliberations, but the media have possibly broken the law by doxxing the lone holdout juror who wanted to convict Clancy for murdering her three young children.
One of the jurors, Paula Davlin, took it a step further and admitted the jury had a political agenda and not justice in mind when deliberating.
Juror Paula Davlin said the mostly female jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial thought a favorable ruling for Clancy could “make it better for other women.”
— AF Post (@AFpost) September 13, 2026
“We knew that this was a turning point, and this would be something that could change something to make it better for other…
"We knew that this was a turning point and that this would be something that could change something, to make it better for women in the future, for other families. You know, justice for those children is this never happening again," Davlin said.
This will happen again, however, because now the message has been sent: if you're a woman, you can kill your child and claim insanity and get away with it.
It makes things indescribably worse for women. Employers would be justified in not hiring women who might snap at any moment if their hormones are surging. Governments would be right to limit women's ability to drive because giving a woman a 2,000-pound weapon on wheels is just too risky.
This makes nothing better for anyone, and children are the ultimate losers here.
During her next media tour stop, juror Paula Devlin says the mostly female jury knew the Lindsay Clancy trial could create change to “make it better for other women.”
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 13, 2026
“We knew that this was a turning point, and this would be something that could change something to make it… pic.twitter.com/4aBlCDzeUx
This shows the jury didn't look at the evidence.
This feels like she's totally admitting to being more committed to the desired outcome than analyzing the evidence to reach a just verdict
— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) September 13, 2026
It's the textbook definition of a runaway jury.
Pretty classic runaway jury. pic.twitter.com/vSAzdZg5Dt
— Lex Jurgen (@Lex_Jurgen) September 13, 2026
The courts and prosecutors must clamp down on this swiftly and severely, or the jury system is finished.
Jury duty is not now, nor has it ever been, a vehicle for activism. You are there to apply the law to the facts of the case before you, not to use a defendant and three dead children as an opportunity to “create change.”
— SharrellAnne (@SharrellAnne2) September 13, 2026
Maybe women shouldn't sit on juries, either.
This is 100 percent confirmation that the female jurors were not only trying to make a statement but were also following the trial on social media. The more these hags run their mouths, the worse it gets. https://t.co/atyWAkWwZh
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) September 13, 2026
Lawyers, both for the prosecution and defense, would be right to strike all women from jury pools over this.
This woman needs to stop
— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) September 13, 2026
doing media. How embarrassing and offensive to women and men who don’t believe murdering your kids should be acceptable. Not to mention a bastardization of what a jury is supposed to do, which is not to engage in activism. https://t.co/V55FIAKLTd
Nothing good comes of activist judges, and things will get even worse with activist juries.
Editor’s Note: The American people overwhelmingly support President Trump’s law and order agenda.
Help us fight back against the Democrats and Soros-backed DAs that refuse to enforce our laws to hold criminals accountable. Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.