First, the assumption was that the Clancy deadlock was between the men and women on the jury, because it had to be women who would side with the defendant who killed her three children. It was wrong. Then, the assumption was that the one holdout juror was one of the white men on the jury, because of course the holdout had to be a white man who stood firm against the defendant who killed her three children. It was wrong. Then it turned out that the one holdout juror was a black man. What happened next was deeply and dangerously wrong.

The NBC10 Boston Investigators are uncovering new details about the lone holdout juror from the Lindsay Clancy murder trial.

Court documents and interviews with family members reveal a history of domestic violence allegations. We discovered a pending eviction case tied to months of not paying rent.

The NBC10 Boston Investigators also found an active restraining order against him, while he was listening to evidence in the case.

Those details raise questions about the jury selection process and how the Plymouth County resident was picked for the high-profile case that ended in a mistrial.

NBC10 Boston has repeatedly attempted to contact the juror at home, where his landlord is currently trying to evict him.

Thankfully, the man wasn’t named, although that could still happen so that his life could be further scrutinized and perhaps subject to physical violence by some unstable nutjob. There is no way to verify whether any of the claims are true, or relevant to the trial. Yet, this person, pressed into duty as a juror and unable to defend himself without outing his identity, is constrained to sit silently while he’s attacked in the media. What was the “crime” for which the media felt compelled to attack? He voted the wrong way in the jury room.

The subtext of the conflict has at times been explicitly political, with some admirers of the holdout juror quick to presume that the 11 others were bleeding-heart liberals giving a pass to a killer they mistook for a victim. Gender, too, played a role: Some women who supported Ms. Clancy saw the holdout as yet another man unwilling to listen to, or believe, a woman in crisis, while one widely shared social media post said the nine women jurors had “traded justice for feelings,” casting aside the evidence and letting their emotions guide them.

Regardless of whether the holdout was hero or villain, he was a juror. He is not a public figure. He is not a celebrity. He has not sought to be interviewed on morning television shows. And he did not ask to be chosen as a member of the jury. But he was, after being subject to voir dire by both prosecution and defense, both of which had the opportunity to ask whatever questions they believed would elicit illuminating responses and to conduct whatever investigation they deemed necessary within the time available.

People don’t show up at the courthouse for jury duty because they have nothing better to do that day, but because they’re summoned. It is a civic duty, albeit one deemed unpleasant by most people who would prefer to avoid it, and yet decent people honor the summons and come as commanded. This juror did his duty. He came. He sat. He deliberated, even if he refused to acquiesce to the will of the majority.

Whether he complied with the judge’s jury instructions or not, or did so to the satisfaction of his fellow jurors, is irrelevant. The nature of our legal system is that jurors are left to make findings on their own, whether they do so in conformity with the law or decide to ignore the law, nullification if you will, and vote their conscience.

This juror may have been wrong in his vote, or not, but he is entitled as a juror to vote whatever way he chooses. That’s the nature of a jury system. Sometimes, people will agree with the jury, or a holdout juror as here, and sometimes people will not. That is the system. That is how the system is supposed to work, no matter how strongly you disagree with the outcome.

No matter how one feels about the verdict, or lack of verdict, investigating the juror, unearthing whatever dirt you can dig up to smear him, to attack him for not serving your political end, is outrageous. Even worse, it fundamentally undermines our legal system’s reliance on jury trials, when jurors are caused to fear that a vote the media deems wrong means they will be publicly tarred for being a heretic.

When a high profile trial produces an outcome with which some in the public disagree, the inclination to find excuses, find causes for the wrongful outcome, can be strong. Resist it. Honor the jury system. No matter how much you disagree with this holdout’s vote, leave him alone. Leave jurors alone. They are not targets of public condemnation and outing because they didn’t vote the way you hoped.