After they’re discharged, American jurors are allowed to talk about a case. No one can force them to, and Massachusetts even tells them to avoid naming other jurors or describing how anyone voted. Legal permission is not the same thing as decent conduct. Several Lindsay Clancy jurors went on television and described the holdout as arrogant, unwilling to listen, scrolling on his phone, and unable to “get off the fact that she viciously killed her children.” They told the country what they believed he thought. That is not illegal. It is a lousy thing to do to someone who sat in the same room under the same oath. Jury deliberations only work if a person can refuse to sign a verdict without becoming a public villain a week later. Outing his character, guessing at his motives, and inviting the internet to finish the job undermines that. One juror’s independence is the point of a unanimous verdict, not a defect to be punished on TV. The instruction they were given was not “did she snap?” and it was not “did she love her kids?” Massachusetts law required the Commonwealth to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she was criminally responsible. She lacked responsibility only if, because of a mental disease or defect at the time of the killings, she lacked *substantial capacity* either to *appreciate* the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct, or to conform her conduct to the law. “Appreciate” means a meaningful understanding, not a passing thought that something is illegal. Love, illness, medication, and tragedy can be evidence. They are not a substitute for those two prongs. I watched the trial. I would likely have found her guilty. A voice — internal or external — does not automatically shut off knowledge that strangling children is wrong. The prosecution experts explained that clearly. Psychosis is not a moral off-switch. People can be suicidal, desperate, and even hallucinating and still understand the significance of what they are doing. Planning, sending her husband out, and the disputed, one-time nature of the alleged command all go to whether she still had that capacity. “She snapped” describes a collapse. It does not answer the charge. The holdout who would not treat “she loved them” as the verdict was applying the question the judge actually asked. The jurors who then went public to condemn him were not. You can disagree with his vote. You should not dox him for it.