Lindsay Clancy, the lone holdout juror, Sue O’Connell/NBC10, and the First Amendment.
Is Sue O’Connell/NBC 10 engaging in juror intimidation here? They are publishing a story with court documents about “a history of domestic violence allegations” against the lone holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy mistrial.
It could be argued that their actions are juror intimidation against the lone holdout. Punishing/retaliating against a juror by harassment/intimidation is expressly barred by M.G.L. c. 268 § 13B. 1st Amendment does not protect the press on this point. By bringing up unrelated allegations (note they don’t say convictions), O’Connell/NBC10 could be seen as trying to retaliate against the lone juror via harassing him publicly, and thus intimidate future jurors who don’t vote the way O’Connell/NBC10 seems to have wanted.
However, O’Connell/NBC10 could argue that this is valid newsgathering protected by the 1st Amendment. After all, the Lindsay Clancy trial was an internationally famous trial, and other jurors have gone public with their stories. The story of the lone holdout juror is driving press speculation, with it already revealed (via other jurors) that he is a black male.
So the issue here is what are O’Connell’s/NBC10’s motivations in bringing up a juror’s unrelated history in unrelated matters, and if this is their regular practice or something they do selectively. O’Connell’s cozy on-camera interview with the opposing jurors–with no reveals of their sordid histories–certainly implies O’Connell/NBC10 are doing this solely because they did not like the holdout juror’s vote, and thus would undercut the 1st Amendment arguments.
