By LARRY SMITH
African Americans have long experienced hypocrisy regarding the negative ways in which Black victims of crime are often portrayed in the media as compared to the positive ways in which white suspects, or even convicted perpetrators, are portrayed.
For example, the media tends to highlight any prior run-ins that Blacks may have had with the legal system. The subliminal message is that the victims deserved whatever happened to them. Further, news organizations frequently comb through Black victims’ social media feeds to find less-than-flattering pictures or controversial posts. In short, Black crime victims are often depicted as if they are the guilty party.
White perpetrators of crime are often portrayed quite differently. Prior misdeeds often don’t make it into news stories announcing their arrest and/or conviction. Pictures that the media uses often depict them neutrally or even favorably. Consider, for example, the “mugshots” of the suspects who were arrested in the recent Penn State cocaine trafficking story. Their photos could be mistaken for PR headshots.
I thought about such racial dichotomies in the wake of the controversy surrounding the mistral of Lindsay Clancy, the white Boston-area mother who strangled her three children to death in January 2023. Two weeks ago, the jury in her trial deadlocked. Eleven jurors voted to acquit Clancy; a lone holdout voted to convict her. Judge William Sullivan refused a request to replace that juror. Ultimately, he declared a mistrial. More on Judge Sullivan later.
In all candor, when I initially heard about the impasse, I assumed that 11 jurors had voted to convict Clancy of her crimes. As we all now know, the opposite is true. That outcome likely would have caused a stir under any circumstances. However, the twist in the trial is that the sole holdout was a Black man. Once this fact became known (because of other jurors), all hell broke loose.
Immediately following the mistrial, Boston’s NBC10 launched an investigation of the juror in question. Last Friday, the station reported on its website, “Court documents and interviews with family members reveal a history of domestic violence allegations (against the juror). We discovered a pending eviction case tied to months of not paying rent.”
Apparently, the good folks at NBC 10 don’t think that their audience understands the words “pending eviction.” Just a few sentences later the story continues, “NBC10 Boston has repeatedly attempted to contact the juror at home, where his landlord is currently trying to evict him.” Call me psychic, but I personally believe that the juror in question is facing eviction …
In any case, the juror and his then-wife divorced following the alleged domestic violence. Further, the criminal charge was dismissed. I am not naïve enough to think that inherently means that the juror was innocent of the charge; I’m simply pointing out that he wasn’t tried and convicted — at least in criminal court. NBC10 attempted to convict him in the court of public opinion. That strategy appears to be working.
It’s not yet clear whether that juror — or any other juror — failed to disclose pertinent information on the forms that they completed prior to their service. That is a matter for the legal system to resolve. But whether the Black juror is guilty of any prior crime is irrelevant as regards his vote to convict Clancy. Further, one can easily imagine a scenario in which a person who had committed a serious crime would be lauded for his integrity in voting to convict someone else who had committed a serious crime.
More relevantly, recent interviews with jurors have revealed something that is actually pertinent to the trial. A juror named Paula Devlin told CBS Saturday Morning that some of her fellow jurors wanted to help make things “better for other women” who suffered from postpartum depression. In other words, according to Devlin, these jurors were not simply focused on the alleged crime at hand; rather, they wanted to advance an agenda. (There is no word on whether Devlin has ever been arrested for domestic violence.)
In another interview, Ms. Devlin said that several of the jurors “wanted to get a conversation started” about postpartum depression so that, perhaps, this type of tragedy “would never happen again.” She also said that several jurors wanted to ensure that all women have adequate prenatal care to prevent such tragedies. That sounds to me like the jurors who ostensibly only considered the facts of this particular case … did not only consider the facts of this particular case.
Moreover, it is abundantly clear that Ms. Clancy had access to the mental, physical, and emotional care that she deserved. Further, her husband, from whom she is now divorced, was extremely supportive of Clancy during and after her pregnancies. She also had loving family and friends who tended to her needs as she recovered. In short, it’s hard to imagine that tragedies of this type could be eradicated merely with adequate health care, though there is no reasonable argument against making such care universally available.
In any case, this mistrial has led to a strange inversion of traditional loyalties and sentiments. On the one hand there is MAGA-world, which, let’s face it, is known for racial animosity against people of color. Yet, many of them strongly support this Black juror. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has even offered him “asylum.” Meanwhile, white feminists, who are often seen as espousing racial equity, are largely outraged at the juror. We are indeed living in strange times.
Now back to Judge Sullivan. Barring an exceedingly convincing alternate explanation, Judge Sullivan exhibited racial bias in a prior case of filicide. Four years ago, he presided over the case of Latarsha Sanders, who was accused of stabbing her two young sons to death. District Attorney Timothy Cruz, who brought murder charges against Clancy, also brought murder charges against Sanders. Sanders has a very long and well-documented history of mental illness. In fact, a doctor determined that she was “grossly psychotic.”
Yet, unlike the Clancy case, Judge Sullivan refused to allow Sanders’ mental health history to be introduced at trial. As a result, jurors deliberated a mere four hours before convicting her. Sullivan then sentenced Sanders to two consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. However, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recently ruled that Sanders did not receive a fair trial because Judge Sullivan did now allow her post-arrest medical records to be introduced.
Sanders is Black.
The law should be straightforward. Penalties for crime should be applied equally. Instead, Black people are too often subject to legal legerdemain and other prosecutorial and judicial malfeasance. Justice is said to be blind. Unfortunately, it is often deaf and mute as well.
Neal K. Shah, an author and researcher at Johns Hopkins University, offered a very important perspective regarding the Clancy case: “Until our health care system supports every single mother the same way, and our legal system applies the law equally across race and ZIP codes, our courtrooms may remain just like that deliberation room — divided, deadlocked, and searching for answers.”
One question that needs to be answered is why so many people are more outraged at a juror than they are at a mother who brutally murdered her own children.
Contact community leader Larry Smith at larry@leaf-llc.com.
For more, visit indianapolisrecorder.com.
