Devlin's Clancy Trial Admission Is in the Details

Letter to Romans: We’re told “Personal Agendas Are Creeping Into the Therapy Room” as more therapists are suspected of bias. But didn’t the Clancy murder trial show the woke shrinks have even entered the courtroom as 11 of 12 jurors bought defense’s “victim” pitch?

Elizabeth Bernstein’s WSJ timely op ed recently warned: “More mental-health professionals appear to be espousing their own ideology or adopting cultural trends, such as encouraging victimhood and estrangement. But George Washington University Law Prof. Jonathan Turley didn’t need that medical insight to call out Clancy juror Paula Devlin who went public with her account of the now infamous jury deliberations. Perhaps without realizing it, the female juror revealingly complained about her (and other jurors’) struggle with the one male holdout juror “who would not listen” to them; that is, after listening to more than a dozen psychiatrists who opined a devilish “male voice” made Clancy strangle her 3 kids to death. Oh, a roughly equal number of psychiatrists had also testified they didn’t buy the “postpartum psychosis” story & that Clancy knew right from wrong at the time of the murders. But that didn’t matter to Devlin who insisted, “We knew that this was a turning point & this would be something that could change something to make it better for other women.”

Prof. Turley noted that admission by Devlin “would seem to confirm the view of many of us that this case may have been lost in voir dire & that some jurors viewed this as much as a cause as a case.” If so, it was Devlin et al and not the hold out juror who ignored the judge’s repeated instructions to apply the law as is and not as they wanted it to be. And, if so, weren’t the jurors trying to make health policy that was tantamount to “jury nullification” of the Rule of Law? If so, it’s hard to see how this case can also somehow “make things better for other” children who are admittedly murdered at the hands of a depressed mother.

Davd Soul