Though I've been called upon for jury duty many times and have been questioned by attorneys during the voir dire process for some cases, I've only ever actually been picked to serve on one.

It was a civil case, and 10 minutes after arguments began, the judge had us escorted out for a recess because the attorneys for both sides wanted to talk. When we came back, we sat for a few minutes longer before we were informed that the attorneys had reached an agreement and that our services were no longer needed.

Though I'm like most people in that I'd rather not serve on a jury, I found myself disappointed, because I've always respected and admired the process. The law/judicial process has fascinated me going back to a young age, watching the lawyers joust with each other and play to the jury, while the judge assumes the role of an exasperated referee, all while a person's fate is being decided.

But looking back on the experience, I can safely say that - whether it had been a high-profile civil trial or a criminal trial - had we had to sit through days or weeks of testimony and, in the end, were not able to unanimously agree on a verdict, I would not ever have trashed my fellow jurors who disagreed with me in the event I decided to go public with my thoughts about the trial.

As a human being and an American, I am absolutely disgusted with what's played out in the aftermath of the mistrial that was declared in the Lindsay Clancy case, where some of the self-righteous female jurors have stepped forth to give us their opinions not on just the lawyers' "styles" but also on the lone holdout juror.

Recommended
Cuba's Power Grid Completely Collapses Nick Arama Watch: Former Press Sec Sarah Huckabee Sanders Stymies Media Over Trump Banning 'Fake News' Becca Lower

He was vilified by some of these jurors and essentially doxxed by NBC News Boston for the apparent crime of coming to a different conclusion than the other 11 jurors as to whether Clancy should be held criminally responsible for admittedly killing her three young children. Because he had voted the "wrong way," he was bound to be named and shamed in the court of public opinion, which is rather fitting considering all of this has taken place in Massachusetts, home of the infamous Salem witch trials.

But as a woman, I am infuriated by how these women have presented themselves as the true "experts" on female hormonal fluctuations, postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis, etc., when what they were supposed to do was to go by what the experts presented by the attorneys had to say. Further, I'm enraged that the holdout juror has had his name dragged through the mud with the insinuation made clear: Because he is a man, he is either unwilling or unable to understand the arguments Clancy's showboating attorney, Kevin Reddington, made in her defense.

What evidence do they have of this? None. It's just their biased opinion, and one the mainstream media have treated as factual because, of course, they have.

In rushing to the press the way they did and then making the feministic comments some of them did about how “We knew that this was a turning point, and this would be something that could change something to make it better for other women," I'm outraged that some of these jurors appear to have abused their role as a juror to do a bit of female social justice warrioring, to "start conversations" on behalf of future generations of women.

As my colleague Kyle Becker has repeatedly pointed out, that is not what trials are supposed to be about. They are supposed to be about listening to the witnesses, the evidence, the experts, the attorneys, the law, and then deliberating in good faith as to where you stand.

It's hardly a surprise that the holdout juror is not only now speaking out himself, but that he's hired his own attorney. One doesn't even have to view juror Michael P. Desronvil as a "hero" or a "maverick" to understand why he felt the need to go on record and counter the various narratives that were being spouted about what allegedly happened during deliberations.

One of the persistent claims some of the female jurors have made is that Desronvil did have reasonable doubt, a statement made ahead of the mistrial being declared that had Reddington spinning like a top in the courtroom.

Except Desronvil disputes that. And not only does he dispute that, but he also alleged that some of the other jurors kept cutting him off as he tried to explain himself and his position:

As X user Western Lensman observed, that was the "least surprising" thing we've learned about these jurors, all things considered:

I wonder how many of these women are AWFLs? When one takes into account that they are based in Massachusetts, it's not going out on a limb to speculate that at least some of them are.

Women are giving other women a bad name, from the Mangione fangirling to the Clancy fanaticism. This is not just embarrassing, but it's also setting us all back, and not just us but the country, too. It's not that we haven't seen this scenario play out before during a murder trial; it just seems to be happening with increasing frequency, and with no end in sight.

Beyond that, there is something deeply offensive about how these women have behaved, all in the name of sticking by the so-called "sisterhood":

Profoundly un-American indeed.