EVERYTHING You Need to Know About the Lindsay Clancy Case

I expressed my opinion in a previous post. I think that either side could be right and that it might be impossible to know for sure. I only hope that the jury makes a well-informed and wise decision.


I served on a jury once. It was a borderline DUI case in which the woman was barely under the legal alcohol limit, but she failed every part of the Field Sobriety Test, which the state claimed showed that she was impaired. Under Utah law, if she was impaired, she could still be convicted even if she was under the legal limit.

The Field Sobriety Test involves tests that I know I would fail. The testing officer looks for nystagmus in your eyes, which I have naturally, and makes you perform physical tasks that I could not reproduce when I tried them in the jury room. I lost my balance. By the way, you are under no legal obligation to take this test, although, as a result, they may want to draw your blood at the police station.

The arresting officer offered his opinion that the woman was impaired and quoted an unnamed scientific study to support it. They never showed us any studies or called any experts.

As a juror, I didn't think that the state had proven its case—not in any scientific or logically consistent way. Although I was ready to vote not guilty, the other three people on the jury, all women, were vehement that the woman was guilty. After arguing for hours, the other jurors browbeat me into voting guilty. I felt that this was a close enough case that I could vote guilty, but I was never happy with the result.