Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 09/02/2026 7:25:35 AM PDT by DFG
A 56-year-old woman was allegedly caught photographing jurors in the Lindsay Clancy triple-murder trial Tuesday afternoon, according to reports.
Dawn Light of Sutton, Massachusetts, was placed in handcuffs outside the Plymouth Superior Court around 3:40 p.m., according to the Massachusetts State Police.
Although state police did not confirm whether the arrest was specifically related to the sensational trial, sources told CBS Boston reporter Kristin Rex that “Someone (who is not a media member) was arrested outside” the courthouse and is “accused of filming jurors in Lindsay Clancy’s trial,” she wrote on X.
“Jurors allegedly saw the filming happening,” she added.
Light is slated to be arraigned Wednesday on one charge of intimidation of a witness, jurors, or person furnishing information in connection with criminal proceedings, state police said, but added no further information was available.
Her arrest came after the jury — composed of nine women and three men — requested to be dismissed by 3:30 p.m. Tuesday — once the clock ticked over to hour 23 of deliberations, according to Court TV.
At the 18-hour mark of deliberations Tuesday morning, the jury advised the judge that they were deadlocked — but the 12-person panel was instructed to continue working toward a verdict in a case that has gripped the nation.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Uganda. Please pick the next available seat.
Who decides who is or is not a “media member”?
Can’t film in a public place?
The judge will be declaring a mistrial. He ought to make the jury sit it out for a week or longer if it takes that long.
Jury intimidation is illegal.
“one charge of intimidation of a witness, jurors, or person furnishing information in connection with criminal proceedings...”
Sounds like Mass. has a law prohibiting it.
I guarantee one thing, this woman was planning on making these jurors famous online if their decision wasn’t to her liking. And I suspect that would be a guilty verdict.
It is illegal in all 50 states to record jurors in any trial or report on their identities. Media inside the courtroom are under strict instructions never to show the panel. In Plymouth County, jurors leave through a private entrance at the back of the courthouse, guarded by state police troopers.
Light allowed police to look through her phone; while they initially didn’t see anything, they found video of individuals confirmed to be members of the Clancy jury leaving the courthouse in the device’s “deleted files.”
They need to dismiss this jury and get all men - from the country area of Western Massachusetts.
did she just film or did she speak as well? If she spoke, what did she say? Was it for or against conviction? Not that they contributes to the validity of the arrest, just curious
Tell that to Derek Chauvin.
You can’t film jurors, or even draw pictures of them. Their identities are supposed to be protected.
9 women on the jury told me exactly what was gonna happen and here we are.
Is it illegal to film jurors when outside the courthouse?
> Can’t film in a public place? <
Great question. The courts have long established that if you are standing where you’re allowed to be, you can film anything you can see.
And the 1A makes everyone a “media member”.
So I’m scratching my head on this one. I’m rather certain the woman was up to no good. But I reluctantly think she has the Constitution on her side.
“ Can’t film in a public place?”
******************************
There’s a court order forbidding recording the jurors. I listened to her arraignment and she exhibited “consciousness of guilt” by deleting those videos as police approached. Of course they were then found in her deleted folders. The judge cut her a break by not requiring a $50,000 bond as requested by the prosecutor.
Very confusing! Flock cameras say that you have no expectation of privacy when in public, so it’s ok to stalk you
Permit me to add something to my post #15.
Let’s say a CBS news crew happened to be in front of that courthouse, and were filming. Would the police have arrested them? I don’t think so.
This is an odd and uncomfortable case on many levels.
But did the Flock cams record the jurors?
Just more government control,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.