Lindsay Clancy returns to court as lawyers fight to investigate

One juror’s alleged cellphone use might be the reason three dead children still don’t have a verdict. That’s the maddening part of Tuesday’s hearing in the Lindsay Clancy case. The defense wants Judge William Sullivan to investigate the lone holdout, who other jurors say was scrolling during trial and deliberations. If that’s true, it’s not a technicality. It’s a broken oath.

Clancy has already admitted to strangling her three kids. The question was never what happened, but what her mental state was at the time. A mistrial means the families of those children have to sit through it all again, waiting on a court system that couldn’t keep a single juror’s hands off his phone. That’s not justice. That’s a procedural disaster. The judge should demand answers, and if the juror violated the rules, that needs to be on the record.

We understand the defense has a job to do. But let’s not pretend this is about fairness to a grieving mother. This is about whether we still expect 12 adults to follow basic instructions. People hate jury duty, and we get that. But the rule against phones isn’t a suggestion. It protects the sanctity of deliberation. A verdict from a juror who was texting through the whole thing isn’t worth the paper it’s written on—and the victims deserve a process that isn’t this embarrassingly sloppy.

The court should investigate openly and finish this case. If that means a new trial, then so be it. But next time, let’s hope the bailiff confiscates the devices and the judge means what he says. Three kids are dead. Their memory deserves a better ending than a hung jury and a phone screen..