A Collision At The Intersection Of Intersectionality

Among the many things we've learned from the Lindsay Clancy trial and its ignominious end, he most entertaining -- and illuminating -- is what happens when intersectionality collides with itself. 

 

Lindsay Clancy fan discovering that the lone juror is black might be the greatest video in history pic.twitter.com/jIAjIvMcU5

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) September 11, 2026

 

Before it was revealed that the holdout juror was a Black man, progressives were all up in arms against him. 

They assumed he was white and therefore an oppressor -- and thus a bad person.  He was a bad person for not being sufficiently empathetic to Lindsay's plight.  After all, in this framework, a woman who claims to have been suffering from mental illness when she killed her kids means she's the real victim and deserves empathy. He was even more bad for going against the "wisdom" of the female jurors, who were being noble and empathetic and trying to make this about something more than just the acts Lindsay Clancy committed and her mental state at the time.

Once the progressive pundits found out the juror was a Black man, they needed to recalculate their oppressor-victim equation and promptly divided by zero. a

After all, by their standards, who is the greater victim and who wins the Victim-Oppressor Olympics now that it is known the holdout was Black? 

Is it the lone Black male being nagged, hectored, and lectured incessantly by white women who claim to know better and are thus whitesplaining the issues to him?

Or is it a white woman alleged to be suffering from postpartum psychosis who killed her three children?

How do they decide who wins when empathy and intersectionality is all you have to go on?

It is entertaining to watch them struggle. But beneath the humor is a rather sad commentary: this kind of intersectional “analysis”—in which people are assigned points on a hierarchy of group victimhood and empathy is elevated above objectivity and facts—has become a mainstream way of determining who is right.

When intersectionality becomes the primary lens through which a situation is judged, the facts become secondary to the identities of the people involved.

And when two supposedly competing categories of victim and oppressor collide, the resulting calculation gets very complicated.

Especially when someone forgets to account for the possibility of a Black man being the holdout on the jury.

Jury Duty

Yep, yours truly got summoned for Jury Duty yesterday in the local District Court and had to appear by 9 am,

This led to some complications, as I had a Zoom motion set in another court yesterday morning at, you guessed it, 9am. A bit of a scramble, but I had an attorney friend cover it.

So I got to the Court and headed down to the jury assembly room, checked in and sat around for quite awhile.

I likely could have done the Zoom motion myself as nothing went on until past 10am. 

We then watched the jury film which gives some basics as to what the juror's role is in the justice system, which I kinda already had down pat.

At 10 am we headed up to the Courtroom.

The judge, who I had practiced in front of before,  and for whom I have considerable respect -- she's the very definition of tough but fair-- was very cordial and informative with the jurors.

The jury selection process began. 

We were introduced to the parties and everyone indicated they did not know them.

We found out the case was domestic violence, in this case a girl on girl assault -- allegedly. 

The first 7 jurors were drawn and questioning began. Questions included employment; to if anyone or their relatives were in law enforcement; if anyone had been a victim of a crime; if anyone had served on a jury before; and similar questions so the parties could get a feel for the jurors.

One juror indicated she would try to be fair as she had been assaulted previously. When asked by the judge if she could definitively be fair she said yes

She was preemptively challenged by the defense, thanked for her service, and another juror chosen from the pool to replace her. Very good call on the Defense attorney's part.

Another juror was chosen and the Defense counsel stated, once he found out the persons name, that his kids went to school with her kids (it was a very distinctive name) even as they don't personally know each other.  Good disclosure but all sides decided it was not an issue as they didn't actually know each other and had no bias either way.

2 more jurors got preemptively challenged and were replaced, and I wasn't randomly selected for either spot.

Probably for the best, as it was highly likely I would be preemptively challenged off by either or both sides if I had been selected.

I, and the rest of the jury pool, were then released and I got on with what became a very full day.

Very instructive to watch the process from the jury pool side of the bar, which will certainly be useful when I next do a jury trial.

Of Trials, Tribulations and A Really, Really dumb Juror

Generally a Jury will do the right thing: Listen to the facts, decide a case and get on with life. Of all the jury trials I've had the Jury has come to the right decision and most have been quite sharp and perceptive.

How do I know this? After a trial judges often give the jurors the option of talking with the attorneys and the jurors often graciously give some time to talk with us, give us pointers on our performance as attorneys and ask questions, oftentimes very pointed questions, such as why didn't the police report come in as an exhibit? (You then get to explain that the rules of evidence preluded it from being admitted.), or why we said something or what we should have said to be even more convincing or what questions they still would want to have resolved.

The Juries I've been before also have consistently some of the best poker faces I've ever seen - we're talking tournament quality here, and you just couldn't read them.

As I said most juries do the right thing....but this one juror...

I was in District Court on a landlord-tenant eviction case and was doing the entire trial by myself with no partners present. It was a jury trial as it was to evict a harrasing and threatening tenant from a HUD subsidized apartment.

The trial went very well indeed, and we awaited the Jury's verdict.

After long deliberation and some interesting questions from the Jury (showing that they clearly were paying attention during the trial and were taking their deliberations seriously) the Defense Counsel and I were called by the Judge into her chambers.

The Judge (a very professional, courteous, smart and capable Judge indeed by the way, she ran a great trial) told us that the jury had reached a verdict but there was a problem. The jury had sent a note that one of the jurors had gone and visited the apartment complex twice.

Now this is a no-no. The instructions to the Jury are very clear, they are not to go visit the scene or do their own investigation.

The Defense attorney knowing a walk is as good as a run immediately requests a mistrial. (A mistrial results in the trial being held once again and the tenant gets to stay while that is happening).

I request that we at least interview the juror and jury and see what actually has happened and the judge agrees.

So we interview the Juror and he says he only drove by the building to see if there were air conditioners, which were a side issue in the case. He also says he thought it was a nice place.

The Defense immediately claims that the juror and jury was tainted by this excursion and again demands a mistrial.

I point out that this is the very definition of harmless error as both Plaintiff and Defendant admit its a nice place to live, otherwise why would Defendant want to keep living there? I also point out that the outside of the building has nothing to do with the Defendant's behaviors that are leading to his eviction nor to his retaliation claim against Plaintiff for trying to evict him.

The Judge sadly for me, grants a mistrial.

On speaking with the Jury after the trial, the verdict was for my client and for the eviction 5-1 (In Michigan a civil jury does not need to be unanimous, you only need 5 of 6 jurors).

So 4 court days, 3 of which were trial days before the jury are down the drain and the trial has been rescheduled and we get to do it all over.

Thanks a lot, Juror Clouseau, next time please wait for the trial to be over to satisfy your curiosity.