In the 25 years that I have been eligible for jury duty, I've been summoned exactly once. That was back in 2010, and I was an on-call juror for family court. For three or four days, I had to call a phone number in the morning and again in the afternoon to see if they'd need me to report to the Milwaukee County Courthouse.
I never had to, and I haven't been called since (even though I probably just jinxed myself). But if I am called and happen to be assigned to a high-profile case, I will definitely have qualms about doing my civic duty after what happened with the Lindsay Clancy jury in Massachusetts. I am not a leftist, nor am I a Karen. I would look at the facts of the case and rule as I believe I should. Much like the lone Clancy holdout, I will stick to my guns.
Yet I will worry about what will happen to my family or me if I invoke the ire of the activists. What will the media dredge up on me? Will they try to find my children? Will they attempt to interview my mother? Will my divorce records become public fodder meant to shame and scare me for not bending the knee?
In some ways, I'm not surprised by what happened with the Clancy jury. The Left is hell-bent on destroying all of our institutions to transform them into bastions of left-wing activism that support the Democrats' and socialists' political agenda. As I have said in the past, the Left has no intention of actually abolishing the police or prisons. They'll simply cut all the prisoners loose, ban the cops from arresting rapists and murderers, and reassign law enforcement to round up people like me for crimes of ungoodthink and opposition to the socialist regime.
Turning juries into activist bodies is part of that agenda. This is how you turn what might have been misdemeanors into felonies so the Democrats can accuse a former and sitting President of being a convicted felon. It's also how you change the law of the land from one that's impartial and blind to one that rewards Democrats and punishes everyone else.
For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law.
And that's not me saying it. That's what a Clancy juror said. Juror Paula Davlin told CBS that she and her fellow activist jurors were hoping that their ruling would not get justice for Patrick Clancy and his three dead children — Cora, Dawson, and Callan — but that it would "be something that could change something, to make it better for women in the future, for other families."
How does turning a blind eye to child murder make things better for women and families?
In the Clancy trial, the judge responded to the chaos by extending the order governing the secrecy of the Clancy jury list, making the impoundment order last indefinitely until a court rules otherwise.
🚨BREAKING: Judge extends secrecy of the Lindsay Clancy juror list.
— Lindsay 🇺🇸 (@TheLinzerShow) September 14, 2026
The original impoundment order was set for two weeks. Today, September 14, Judge William Sullivan extended it until further order of the court.
The judge cited a “real and present risk” of harm to jurors,… pic.twitter.com/pjv8e0IwCf
The post reads:
The judge cited a “real and present risk” of harm to jurors, intense social-media attention, jurors being identified without permission, and the arrest of an individual accused of secretly recording jurors leaving court.
The order also reveals that at least one juror asked for the list to remain SEALED INDEFINITELY.
Some jurors have chosen to speak publicly, but the court says the majority of jurors and alternates have remained anonymous despite multiple media requests.
The order does not prevent any juror from voluntarily identifying themselves or speaking publicly.
This is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic because the "real and present risk" is not harm to Clancy jurors, but the threat this absolute clown show poses to the entire justice system.
Because here we have a jury that has said they did not care about the facts of the case. They didn't care about the evidence the prosecution presented or the concept of justice. They admitted, publicly and proudly, that they are activists who want to change the justice system to align with their political agenda.
To that end, they have doxxed and harassed the lone holdout juror, a black man, by digging up allegations of domestic abuse and a restraining order. Those are not good things, but they're also allegations and — even if true — nowhere near the same thing as viciously strangling three young children.
There was a time when we held such bad actors accountable. I think back to Mike Nifong, the prosecutor who was so determined to convict members of the Duke lacrosse team of rape. Nifong's behavior during the prosecution was abhorrent. He called the players "hooligans," framed it as an act of racism, and ignored the lack of evidence and the accuser's own changing statements. He ended up recusing himself from the case in 2007 and was eventually disbarred. Roy Cooper even called Nifong a "rogue prosecutor."
There is little difference between what Nifong did and what the Clancy jurors are doing: both had a predetermined outcome in this case, all evidence be damned. Nifong was held accountable, not only by being disbarred but also by serving a brief stint in jail. An order protecting the jury isn't worth the paper it's written on.
The jurors who have admitted to activism and encouraged the harassment of a fellow juror who was doing his civic duty must be held accountable, as should the media who investigated the man who wasn't on trial here. A clear and powerful message must be sent that the right to a jury trial is sacred, that it must not be marred by political activism, and that those who are derelict in their duty will face consequences.
Because the alternative — a jury that can convict you, or me, because of their political activism — is a terrifying thought.
