The high-profile trial left McCarthy, now 59, with nightmares, insomnia, and constant reminders of the violence that killed three and injured more than 500 others. She spent a year and a half in therapy processing what she’d seen, including autopsy photos, videos of the blasts, and remnants of the pressure cooker bombs used in the attack.
McCarthy’s experience is not unusual among the small fraction of Americans seated on juries each year. Those assigned to especially grisly or high-profile cases, like the trial of Lindsay Clancy, can carry the psychological effects long after the trial concludes. But the support available to help them process varies by jurisdiction and is sometimes limited, experts said.
“It’s a high price to pay for doing your civic duty,” said Harold Bursztajn, a psychiatrist and associate professor at Harvard Medical School.
The 18 jurors in Clancy’s murder trial have already been exposed to evidence that experts say can be deeply disturbing. On Thursday, jurors saw autopsy photos of 8-month-old Callan Clancy, which left some in tears.
The group has also visited the Duxbury home where Clancy is accused of killing her three young children before attempting suicide. They’ve seen the clothes the children were wearing when they were strangled, as well as the exercise bands prosecutors say were used in the killings. They are among the only people who have heard the 911 call recording of Patrick Clancy’s screams when he found the children.
Beyond examining the evidence, the jurors are responsible for deciding whether Clancy premeditated the killings or whether she was experiencing postpartum psychosis that left her unable to control her actions, as her attorneys have argued.
“When people have the responsibility for rendering a verdict in a trial which involves a horrible tragedy, the responsibility can be amazingly overwhelming,” Bursztajn said.
The Massachusetts Office of the Jury Commissioner offers all empaneled jurors free short-term counseling after their service, said Jennifer Donahue, a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Jurors can request up to three meetings with trained counselors and get referred to longer-term help if they need it.
“While these meetings are not therapy, our counselors provide supportive listening, engage in problem solving, and offer suggestions to help you manage your reactions,” the agency says in the request form provided to jurors at the end of their service.
Research has shown that up to 50 percent of jurors experience trauma-related symptoms, often linked to deliberations, graphic evidence, and case complexity. Ann Burgess, a Boston College professor and psychiatric mental health nurse who researches trauma, said cases involving the deaths of children are more likely to cause distressing symptoms, as are trials that drag on for weeks or months.
While the trial is ongoing, jurors are not allowed to discuss the case, including with their family and other jurors. This can lead to a sense of loneliness, amplifying already-distressing emotions, Bursztajn said.
“Two of the major vulnerabilities are being alone and feeling helpless in the face of horror, uncertainty, and ambiguity,” he said.
Jurors commonly experience what is called secondary trauma, or emotional distress caused by hearing or seeing something traumatic, Burgess said. People exposed to graphic evidence and emotional testimony often experience nightmares, trouble sleeping, anxiety, and intrusive thoughts or memories.
“This can be very painful both for the jurors and the jurors’ families, who witness their loved ones, who have tried to do their civic duty and be responsible, becoming emotionally flooded,” Bursztajn said.
McCarthy, a social worker, said she noticed Tsarnaev’s trial was affecting her when she started sleeping poorly and having anxiety, which she hadn’t experienced before. McCarthy said the most impactful testimony came from survivors and victims’ families.
“I can still see their faces to this day,” she said. “It was overwhelming for sure. It was a lot to process.”
Janet Uhlar, who served as a juror in the 2013 trial of mob boss Whitey Bulger, said evidence in the case included forensic images of brain matter and detailed testimony about the shooting deaths of more than two dozen victims. She said she had nightmares of being chased by people with guns while wearing a white fur coat one victim was described as wearing.
“It impacts you, it stays with you, it goes home with you. It’s an emotional shock, these kinds of trials,” Uhlar said. “You walk away, and you’re changed forever.”
In federal cases, like the Tsarnaev trial, judges can offer jurors access to free counseling through the Employee Assistance Program. But on the state level, there’s no standard when it comes to handling jury trauma, said Jawwaad Johnson, director of the Center for Jury Studies at the National Center for State Courts.
“There is no one-size-fits-all solution,” he said. “Within states, one courthouse to another will approach jury trauma differently based on how it presents itself.”
It’s common for judges to debrief the jury at the end of a trial about difficult emotions and ways to handle them, Johnson said. While most are very careful not to directly label evidence as “emotional” during the trial to not bias jurors, judges can check in on other aspects of juror health, like whether they are eating or sleeping, Bursztajn said.
In the Clancy trial, Judge William F. Sullivan has reminded jurors several times they can’t base their verdict on emotion, including when the prosecution played the 911 call and showed the children’s autopsy photos.
Courts struggle to provide more extensive help for jurors because of a lack of resources, said Jack Lu, a retired judge who served in the Massachusetts Superior Court and Boston Municipal Court. He said secondary traumatization for jurors and court staff is “common,” and he saw it in his time as a judge by observing jurors’ “physical appearance and demeanor.”
“They will express anxiety about whether they have done the right thing … they will ask, was this a reasonable verdict?” Lu said. “And I would say something like, ‘You, by definition, have done the right thing.’”
Johnson said there needs to be more conversation around the issue.
“Courts should, regardless of resources, be having conversations about juror trauma and ways to address it,” he said. “It’s not that the court has so much power that they’re going to make things perfect for every single juror, but I think that if a juror knows that the court system is doing as much as it can to make me whole, that can really serve as an instrument to provide trust and confidence in the process.”
McCarthy remembers crying as she entered the deliberation room to decide Tsarnaev’s fate. Now, her family calls her a “cyborg” because she doesn’t often express emotion.
“I think I used all my tears on that trial, man,” she said. “It was just gut-wrenching.”
Emily Spatz can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on X @emilymspatz.
