WASHINGTON - TelAve -- In widely televised remarks, Lindsay Clancy's defense counsel was very critical of one juror who refused to vote his client not legally responsible . . .

Moreover, the implications of the Clancy deliberations can extend to all jurors in high profile cases - Scrutiny of Jury May Complicate Future of Lindsay Clancy Case (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/15/us/lindsay-c...):

In view of these alarming developments, anyone called to serve on a jury in the future, especially if the case involves controversial issues  . . . probably should take a few simple common sense precautions . .

These precautions for smart prospective jurors might include:
■ They should not provide their names, or discuss any possibly identifying information (such as occupation, marital status, home town, etc.), with the other jurors, or anyone else in or around the courthouse.

More on TelAve News

• Put Your Herd on Your Phone: Kiko Nation Makes Livestock Management Simple
• Future Intelligence Think Tank Surpasses 1,000 Members Exploring Human and Artificial Intelligence
• Gary Bernstein Expands Media Leadership Role With Senior Strategic Advisor Appointment To Blacksun Private Equity
• Headline: House of Nova Paints Every Face in Gold at New York Fashion Week
• Can Government Operate Better Through Innovation?

■ Anyone required to report for jury duty, and especially anyone subsequently chosen to serve on a jury, should share this information with as few people as possible.
■ If it hasn't already been done, jurors should ask the judge to protect their privacy if not safety by preventing the disclosure of their names and identifying information except to the extent required by law.
■ When asked during voir dire in open court for personal information, prospective jurors should try to be vague to avoid disclosing identifying information.  Saying "I'm an office worker" is better than "I'm a regional manager for a large toy manufacturer." . . .

As the article Lindsay Clancy's Holdout Juror Did What Jurors Are Supposed To Do (https://reason.com/2026/09/18/lindsay-clancys-holdout-juror-did-what-jurors-are-supposed-to-do/) explained it: . . .

For example, see Lindsay Clancy Mistrial Shows That Jury Nullification Cuts Both Ways (https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/09/20/opinion-lindsay-clancy-trial-jury-holdout/): . . .

More on TelAve News

• Michael H. Kaplan Advocates for Seriously Injured Colorado Workers Who Need In-Home Care
• Infinity Infusion Solutions Named Finalist for D Magazine's D CEO 2026 Excellence in Healthcare Awards
• Canadian Tint Expo 2027: Why Every Window Tinter Should Compete in Niagara Falls on April 3rd & 4th
• MobileSphere Index Finds Mobile Numbers Are Becoming the New Digital Identity
• Building a Diversified Healthcare Platform as Exosome Science, Telehealth, Diagnostics & Strategic Acquisitions Converge: NexTel Medical (OTCID: MAJI)

So, if a juror decides, in an unusual and compelling case, to vote his conscience rather than the law, he would be wise to be discreet about that decision in order to avoid any risk that a judge will remove him from the jury.

Therefore such a juror:
■ should not state or even intimate that he is planning not to follow the law as charged by the judge;
■ should not try to convince other jurors to do the same, or even explain to them the reasons behind juror or jury nullification.
■ Although he is not required to fully discuss, explain, or try to justify how he plans to vote, he should not completely shut down and refuse to have any meaningful interactions with other jurors;
■ he should say and do nothing about his decision until after the trial is completely over and the jury has been dismissed. . .

http://banzhaf.net/   jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com   @profbanzhaf