Juror in Lindsay Clancy case burst into tears during prosecution closings
PLYMOUTH, MASS– A female juror was seen repeatedly wiping her eyes during the closing argument of prosecutor Jennifer Sprague.
Follow The Post’s live updates on the Lindsay Clancy trial
Here’s the latest on Lindsay Clancy’s trial for allegedly murdering her three children:
- Could Lindsay Clancy go free? Her potential fates as jury decides whether she’s criminally responsible for strangling 3 kids
- Juror in Lindsay Clancy case burst into tears during prosecution closings
- Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer calls her a ‘darn good mother’ during closing arguments in trial for murdering her 3 kids
- Jury weighs whether killer mom Lindsay Clancy should be found guilty after explosive closing arguments
The woman — who sat in the first jury seat and wore glasses — wiped her nose and her eyes several times during the somber remarks by Sprague who accused Clancy of coldly and cruelly strangling her children.
The panel was sent to begin deliberations shortly after 12:30 p.m. The jury is composed of nine women and three men.
The jury, which had remained largely deadpan during defense attorney Kevin Reddington’s closing, appeared more engaged as Sprague spoke—albeit subtly.
Read more Callaway drops Good Good Golf after viral ad backlash
Several jurors leaned forward in their seats as the prosecutor walked them back through the harrowing details of the killings — including her description of Dawson’s face, riddled with popped blood vessels after he was strangled.
Others remained nearly motionless, their eyes fixed on Sprague as she methodically recounted the children’s final moments and argued that Lindsay Clancy knew exactly what she was doing.
Several of them glanced at Clancy to see how she was reacting.
The tension in the courtroom seemed to linger in the air after Sprague finished.
As she returned to the prosecution table, several jurors shifted or readjusted in their seats before the judge began giving instructions.
Read more Canada’s CBC instructs staff not to call 9/11 a ‘terrorist attack’ in news coverage