Massachusetts v. Lindsay Clancy: A Case for Jury Sequestration
If you have a social media account, you’ve likely heard of the ongoing trial, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Lindsey Clancy1. It’s highly televised, highly controversial, and for most people, it’s been the majority of their social media content for August, 2026.
The defendant, Lindsay Clancy, is on trial in Plymouth County, Massachusetts, for the triple homicide of her three young children in January 2023. Ms. Clancy – whose lawyers argue was suffering from post-partum depression, anxiety, and psychosis at the time of the murders – pleaded not guilty at indictment. The internet has since divided itself into multiple camps: some see Ms. Clancy as a postpartum woman failed by the health system in Massachusetts, others await her conviction for cold-blooded murder, and a specific subset believe Ms. Clancy’s husband, Patrick, is responsible for the event. These views are well represented on social media – Ms. Clancy’s supporters on TikTok organized a gathering outside Plymouth County Superior Court on August 20, 2026.2
Due to the high profile nature of this case, six alternate jurors were selected in addition to the full jury of twelve. All jurors are tasked with avoiding any and all extraneous information over the course of the trial, including news updates, social media posts, and conversations with friends and family. There is a presumption that the judge’s instructions will be enough to deter jurors from seeking outside information. In fact, Judge William Sullivan greets the jury each morning with the same questions:
“Has any member of the jury seen, read, or heard anything that may impact your ability to remain impartial during this trial? Is there any other serious matter or concern bearing on your service in this case?”
and sends them home each evening with the same instructions:
“Remember, don’t do any research that affects your ability to remain fair and impartial. Don’t talk to anyone. Don’t go online. Don’t take any road trips [to view the crime scene].”
Notice that these directions do not instruct the jury to sequester themselves from all information – simply to avoid biasing information. Unfortunately, jurors lack the discernment needed to report their own exposure to information that may sway their opinions. As far back as 1932, judges recognized that instructions not to access biasing information are a “recommendation to the jury of a mental gymnastic which is beyond not only their powers, but anybody else’s.”3
Social science supports the idea that jurors are highly influenced by extraneous trial information. For example, an analysis of 77 experiments comprised of 11,240 participants demonstrated that:4
exposure to publicity that frames the defendant in a negative light significantly increased the percentage of the time that the jury, as a collective, will come to a decision;
exposure to publicity that frames the defendant in a negative light significantly increased the percentage of guilty verdicts rendered;
exposure to publicity that frames the defendant in a positive light significantly decreased the percentage of guilty verdicts rendered.
If even one single juror consumes extraneous information about a trial, it can influence other jurors. Specifically, experimental research has demonstrated that mock jurors mention extraneous information at least once during deliberation.5 Further, extraneous information that is highly emotional in nature inspired significantly more guilty verdicts than when straightforward misinformation was consumed.6
The Clancy trial has inspired pro-defendant TikToks, anti-defendant Reddit posts, and more misinformation than any juror could reasonably parse. Unfortunately, courts struggle to adequately address how jurors' viewing social media violates the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. For example, a juror accessed a judge’s Twitter account during the course of a trial. This prompted the judge to request r a Remmer hearing. A Remmer hearing determines whether a juror has been unfairly influenced due to extrajudicial contact or communications during a trial.7 The juror claimed that they were following journalists who were actively tweeting about the trial before being sat on the jury. Because the juror did not like or retweet any of the links related to the trial, it was determined that the juror was not unduly influenced and was allowed to continue with jury duty.8 This signals that the court is not well prepared to address the social media atmosphere jurors are expected to navigate.
These issues are easily avoided with jury sequestration, in which the jury is housed and isolated from news media, social media, and even other people. An 18-person jury can be housed in Plymouth County for a three-week trial for approximately $60,0009 in housing costs, and approximately $30,000 10 in meals and incidentals. Highly contested trials in Massachusetts can cost upwards of $1.4 million11 in operational and prosecutorial expenses. Jury sequestration is not just the fiscal option; it avoids the issue that finding 18 additional impartial jurors will be significantly harder after a televised mistrial. The jurors in Massachusetts v. Clancy (2026) are expected to stay impartial despite a social media ecosystem where trial coverage can be 24/7 with an attuned algorithm – a recommendation of mental gymnastics beyond their powers.
References