A juror who voted to spare Lindsay Clancy from a murder conviction said she saw the trial as a “turning point” that could “make it better for other women,” remarks that critics say recast the killing of three children as a cause.
Paula Devlin made the comments in a CBS Saturday Morning interview clip.
Devlin explains how she viewed the trial as a chance to strike out for social justice.
“We knew this would be a turning point … that could change something to make it better for other women,” Devlin said in the clip.
Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com
Lindsay Clancy juror Paula Devlin, auditioning here for the role of the village idiot, explains how she viewed the trial as a chance to strike out for social justice.
“We knew this would be a turning point…that could change something to make it better for other women.” pic.twitter.com/tR2BD2qwUU
— Dinesh D’Souza (@DineshDSouza) September 13, 2026
Devlin was among the jurors who favored finding Clancy not criminally responsible after Clancy was tried in the deaths of her three children. The case ended in a mistrial when the panel could not reach a unanimous verdict.
According to many who views the clip on social media, Devlin’s words come across as an admission that the jury box had been used for a social-justice project.
The quoted statement does not mention the children who were brutally murdered, it describes the trial as a chance to change conditions for “other women.”
That is the inversion at the center of the case. A murder trial is supposed to decide whether a defendant is guilty of killing specific human beings. It is not a vehicle to send a political message.
Devlin’s language treats the verdict as a precedent for mothers, not an accounting for the children who died. Jurors are instructed to apply the law to the evidence. They are not instructed to create a turning point.
If Devlin “knew” the case “could change something to make it better for other women,” she was describing a political hope, not a finding about whether Clancy was criminally responsible.
Three children are still dead. No juror’s theory of social justice restores them. A system that hears a triple killing and asks first what the outcome will do for “other women” has already moved the children to the edge of their own story.
