Woman accused of filming Lindsay Clancy jurors pleads not guilty, flees reporters outside courthouse

 September 3, 2026

A 56-year-old retired nurse who allegedly recorded jurors in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial from a restricted area now faces up to 20 years in prison, and her own words to police may be the most damaging evidence against her.

Dawn Light of Sutton, Massachusetts, pleaded not guilty to aggravated intimidation of a witness after Massachusetts State Police arrested her outside Plymouth Superior Court, where the high-profile Clancy trial has stretched into its fifth day of deadlocked deliberations. Prosecutors say Light filmed jurors with her cellphone from a restricted courthouse parking area as they left the building, then deleted the footage before officers could see it. A trooper who searched her phone with her permission found the videos sitting in her deleted files folder, CBS News Boston reported.

The arrest forced the trial judge to halt proceedings and individually question every juror about whether the incident had compromised their ability to deliberate fairly. It did not result in any juror being removed, but it injected a new crisis into a trial already teetering on the edge of a mistrial.

Deleted footage and a damaging admission

State police arrested Light around 3:40 p.m. Tuesday after a court officer reported seeing her film jurors in a restricted area outside the courthouse. When officers confronted her, Light denied recording anyone. But the police report tells a different story.

A trooper asked to look through Light's phone. She agreed. Her camera roll was empty. Officers then checked her deleted files folder and allegedly found videos of the jury walking out of the courthouse.

Light's own statement to police, quoted in the report, undermined any claim she had stumbled into the restricted zone by accident. She told officers she "really didn't see a sign that said employees only," then added: "It wouldn't have stopped me." That combination, deleted footage and a stated willingness to ignore courthouse rules, forms the backbone of the prosecution's case.

Light described herself as a "crime junkie" and supporter of Lindsay Clancy. She told officers she had been trying to record Clancy, not jurors. Just The News reported that Light claimed she accidentally captured a juror while trying to film Clancy leaving the building and lowered her phone when she realized the person was not Clancy.

That explanation did not satisfy prosecutors.

Prosecutor warns judicial integrity is at stake

At Light's arraignment Wednesday in Plymouth District Court, housed in the same building as the Clancy trial, prosecutor Nicole Piacentini asked for $50,000 cash bail and painted the incident as a direct threat to the trial's legitimacy.

"The sanctity of the judicial system is at risk because of her actions."

Piacentini called it "an extremely serious matter for the Commonwealth and for the integrity of the proceedings," the New York Post reported. If convicted, Light faces up to 20 years in prison.

Light's defense attorney, whose name was not disclosed in court coverage, pushed back, calling the entire episode a misunderstanding and arguing Light posed no flight risk. The attorney described her client as a retired registered nurse living on a fixed income with no criminal record.

"This is a complete misunderstanding, your honor. My client was seeking a picture of Ms. Clancy and had no intention of videoing jurors."

The arraignment judge declined to set cash bail but imposed strict conditions. Light must stay away from the courthouse and court grounds, avoid all contact with potential jurors and witnesses in the Clancy case, and refrain from sharing any photos or videos from the incident.

High-profile criminal trials have increasingly been complicated by outside interference and jury-related disruptions. In another recent case, New York prosecutors dropped a rape charge against Harvey Weinstein after two hung juries made further prosecution untenable, a reminder of how fragile the jury process can be even without alleged tampering.

Judge questioned every juror before deliberations resumed

The arrest rippled immediately into the Clancy trial itself. Judge William Sullivan, who is presiding over the murder case, pulled each juror aside and questioned them individually about the filming incident before allowing deliberations to continue. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington confirmed Sullivan found no issues with any juror's ability to serve.

Sullivan also issued a formal court order barring anyone from filming, following, contacting, or tampering with jurors, a step that underscored how seriously the court treated the breach. The Associated Press reported that the jury of nine women and three men remains deadlocked after five days of deliberations, with a mistrial appearing increasingly likely.

WBZ-TV legal analyst Jennifer Roman explained why the incident posed such a serious risk to the proceedings, even if Light's motives were as innocent as she claims.

"It can definitely have a chilling effect on these jurors. They are doing this under a cloak of confidentiality. There's a reason why the press is not allowed to show the faces of these jurors. There's a reason why jurors are polled every day that they go into that courtroom and asked if they've read the news, if they've talked to anyone about this case. We want to keep those jurors in a protected bubble while they do their work. So this woman coming in and photographing them is really dangerous to those jurors and these deliberations."

Roman's point cuts to the core of the matter. Jurors in a murder trial agree to serve under the understanding that the system will protect their identities and shield them from outside pressure. When someone breaches that protection, whether through malice or recklessness, it threatens the willingness of citizens to serve on juries at all.

Light ran from cameras, then stopped to talk

After her arraignment, Light encountered a media scrum outside the courthouse. She ran toward her car. When a reporter asked what happened, she offered a single word: "Nothing."

But she did not stay quiet for long. Pressed on why she had come to the courthouse in the first place, Light answered plainly.

"To see Lindsay. To see Lindsay, and I did see her. She was getting picked up by the van."

Her defense attorney then stepped in and stopped her from answering further questions. The brief exchange captured a tension at the center of the case: Light's stated fascination with Clancy and the trial, set against the legal system's need to keep jurors insulated from exactly that kind of public attention.

The Clancy trial itself has drawn intense public interest. Reddington, Clancy's defense attorney, told Fox News he is prepared to retry the case "next week" if the deadlocked jury results in a mistrial. The jury has now gone through five full days without reaching a verdict, and Fox News reported that legal analysts consider the next deadlock announcement a likely trigger for a mistrial declaration.

Arrest stories with dramatic courtroom dimensions have dominated headlines in recent months. A former deputy died in prison six months into his sentence for killing Sonya Massey, and in Florida, actor Faizon Love was arrested in a child support dispute that drew national attention. Each case underscores how the legal system's credibility depends on participants, jurors, officers, defendants, and spectators, following the rules.

Open questions the court has not answered

Several gaps remain in the public record. Prosecutors have not identified the specific Massachusetts statute under which Light was charged, beyond the general description of aggravated intimidation of a witness. The number of jurors questioned by Judge Sullivan has not been specified beyond "every juror." And it is unclear whether the deleted videos recovered from Light's phone have been formally preserved as evidence or under what legal authority they were retained after the consensual search.

Light's next court date has not been announced. The Clancy trial continues with its deadlocked jury, and the formal no-filming order issued by Judge Sullivan now governs conduct around the courthouse going forward.

Jurors do not volunteer for murder trials expecting to be filmed in a parking lot by a stranger who deletes the footage before police can see it. If the system cannot protect the people it asks to sit in judgment, it will eventually stop finding people willing to sit.

Patriot News Alerts delivers timely news and analysis on U.S. politics, government, and current events, helping readers stay informed with clear reporting and principled commentary.