TV station decides anonymous Clancy juror’s life won’t stay anonymous

The Arenblog - Tom Arenberg · 4 days ago · discuss

this is a screenshot from the tv station’s video. links to the video and the station’s online article are in the blog post. Many people consider jury duty a burden, but one juror in the Lindsay Clancy child murder trial experienced the bonus of a local TV station splaying his personal-life misdeeds all over the nation. For no good reason.NBC10 in Boston reported on Sept. 11 that the lone holdout juror who caused a mistrial in the viral criminal case faced a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence against his wife in 2021, a charge later dropped because the wife decided not to testify. He had a restraining order against him from an allegation of domestic violence involving his nephew last year. It expired during the trial. The station also reported that his landlord is trying to evict him for unpaid rent. All of this is in Massachusetts public records.NBC10 did not name the juror, who held out in favor of Clancy’s conviction and has not identified himself publicly. (His name has spread on social media from other sources.) NBC10 wrote that the juror’s past raises the question of whether he accurately filled out his confidential pre-trial juror questionnaire when it asked about criminal history. The station’s report suggested that his acceptance on the jury meant the attorneys in the case did not know of his past (with the prosecution being most likely to strike him if it knew). The report did not suggest that his past influenced his verdict vote.Regardless, the reporting into the man’s personal life lit up social media with debate over its journalistic and ethical justifications, and whether the TV outlet was trying to disgrace him for a vote it disagreed with. It’s also relevant that NBC 10 aired post-trial interviews with several other jurors, who criticized the holdout for aloofness and for clinging to his vote despite acknowledging having reasonable doubt about Clancy’s guilt.I see no issue with voluntary post-trial juror interviews, because of free speech, free press and in general the messy process of jury deliberation could use some more sunshine. Publishing the discoveries of the Clancy juror background check seems way more suspect.Many of the TV outlet’s critics claimed it did so because of racism – the holdout was the only Black juror – or because the station wanted to retaliate against the holdout for a wrong vote. If either motive is true, that’s a gross violation of journalistic standards. But those claims are speculative. It’s easier to evaluate the journalistic thinking behind publication. The station argues in its written and video reports that it’s raising a valid question about the jury selection process and its honor-system questionnaires. But as the station acknowledges, it doesn’t know for sure that the juror omitted his past problems where the form asked about such things*, nor does it know that truthfulness would have caused a lawyer to exclude him. (His past wouldn’t automatically disqualify him.) Also, to show a systemic problem, multiple examples beat only one. Yet NBC 10 checked the public records on none of the other jurors.I can’t say that newsworthiness and the public interest would never warrant a probe into a juror. But this one by NBC 10 Boston seems like a major stretch of the logic of newsworthiness and the ethics of journalism.* A YouTube podcaster posted Tuesday night that he interviewed the juror, who said he did not lie on the questionnaire, did check the box regarding past arrests (but not two other boxes he should have), and was questioned about the checked box by the prosecution during jury selection. The podcaster did not provide video or audio.