Lindsay Clancy 'Bombshell': Juror Says Advancing 'Feminism' Was Major Factor in Decision

As if several of the Lindsay Clancy jurors' are on a mission to do as much damage as they can to the justice system, another one has come forward with a stunning insight into the jury's deliberations.

It turns out, feminism was a major factor, according to one juror. This has to be seen to be believed.

Lindsay Clancy juror says the mostly-female jury viewed the case as an important opportunity to advance feminism: “We knew that this was a turning point, and this would be something that could change something to make it better for other women…” pic.twitter.com/YYwFXK6vh0

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) September 14, 2026

“We knew that this was a turning point, and this would be something that could change something to make it better for other women. You know, justice for those children is this never happening again,” juror Paula Davlin said.

This goes to a point that I have been making for years: Social justice is ultimately a perversion of actual justice. That is because justice is a matter of an individual's actions, not a matter of group identity.

Now, it is important to note Davlin claimed to speak not just for herself, but for the other women on the jury.

This wasn't an evenly split jury, either. It was composed of nine females and three males. And the verdict came down as 11-1 — with one lone, black male refusing to bend to the pressure.

This resulted in a mistrial in a high-profile murder case where the defense had effectively conceded that Lindsay Clancy had killed her three children.

The media blitz in the past week revolving around this case has been one of the most perplexing and unseemly in the recent history of criminal cases.

We have seen jurors trotted out to express highly controversial personal opinions about a case that should only have been about the evidence in the courtroom. 

This was accompanied by a witch hunt for the lone holdout juror's identity, which appears to have been aided by the defense attorney's own wife.

We shouldn't even know these jurors' names, as RedState editor Susie Moore pointed out in a recent article.

There's been a lot of focus on the "holdout juror" who refused to acquit Lindsay Clancy (i.e., find her not guilty by reason of insanity). The attempts to out the man are beyond the pale. We shouldn't know his name. But then...we shouldn't know any of the other jurors' names either. 

Yes, it's their right to speak to the media if they choose to, but that doesn't make it right for them to do so. In fact, it seemingly incentivizes the politicization of the entire matter, and feeds an unhealthy desire for their respective "15 minutes of fame." 

There's a lot that ails us as a society – this impulse to celebratize jurors isn't helping.

Meanwhile, an NBC reporter all-but-doxxed the juror by providing a contextless hit job about domestic assault allegations and rent delinquency, as if to sully the credibility of a juror who was intentionally, and understandably, staying out of the public limelight. This may not have just been unethical, but possibly illegal, Teri Christoph reports.

This all adds up to a despicable mix of juror intimidation and politicization of a case that should have been about one thing and one thing only: justice for the children who lost their lives.

Editor's Note: Unelected federal judges are obstructing President Trump's agenda and ignoring the will of the people.

Help us expose out-of-control judges determined to halt President Trump's mandate for change. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.