As Lindsay Clancy’s jury weighs criminal responsibility, prosecutors portray the alleged filming of jurors as a threat to the court’s integrity, while Dawn Light’s lawyer says her client was seeking an image of Clancy, not contact with the panel.

The incident injected an unexpected security test into a trial already marked by intense public scrutiny and sharply divided views of Clancy’s mental state. Rather than halt proceedings, Judge William Sullivan questioned jurors individually and sent them back to deliberate.

Light, 56, was arrested after authorities said she was in a restricted area outside Plymouth courthouse and that images or video of departing jurors were recovered from her phone’s deleted files. She pleaded not guilty to aggravated intimidation of a juror and was ordered to avoid the courthouse, jurors and witnesses; the judge declined prosecutors’ request for $50,000 cash bail.¹

The prosecution treated the allegation as more than a breach of courthouse rules. Assistant District Attorney Nicole Piacentini told the court, “The sanctity of the judicial system is at risk because of her actions.”² The court has a specific order barring the photographing or filming of jurors, protections made more prominent by the trial’s large press presence and online attention.¹

Light’s attorney, Jennifer White, offered a contrasting account: “This is a complete misunderstanding, Your Honour. My client was trying to get a picture of Ms Clancy.”¹ Light similarly said she wanted “to see Lindsay,” while denying she had filmed jurors.²

The episode unfolded as the 12-member jury entered a fifth day of deliberations after reporting difficulty reaching a unanimous decision. Their task remains separate from the arrest: deciding whether Clancy is guilty of murder or manslaughter, or not criminally responsible because of mental illness. Clancy does not deny killing her three children; the defense attributes her actions to postpartum psychosis, while prosecutors contend she understood what she was doing.²