Three women who served on the jury in the trial of Lindsay Clancy expressed frustration publicly, saying a single holdout juror blocked a unanimous verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity in the case involving the deaths of Clancy’s three young children.
The jurors - including the foreperson - spoke for the first time in an interview that aired on the NBC-owned Boston station NBC10. Their comments came after Judge William Sullivan in Plymouth, Massachusetts declared a mistrial on Friday when the 12-member jury reported it could not reach a unanimous decision.
Foreperson Roni Carlson said the jury had been prepared to enter forms indicating a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity after one juror acknowledged having reasonable doubt, but then refused to sign on to that verdict. "He admitted he had reasonable doubt and I started filling out the forms, I was so excited," Carlson said. She reported that the juror told the group: "I’m still not going to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity."
Another juror, Paula Devlin, described the holdout as "very arrogant," saying he did not meaningfully engage with the others' arguments. The jurors and the interview did not identify the holdout by name; the jurors’ identities are sealed. The holdout juror could not be reached for comment.
Defense case and the central question for jurors
During the six-week trial, defense attorney Kevin Reddington argued Clancy experienced a psychotic episode at the time she killed her children and should be found not guilty by reason of insanity - a verdict referred to in Massachusetts law as lack of criminal responsibility. The defense presented testimony and other evidence the jurors described as showing Clancy’s love for her children, and contended she had "snapped" in the midst of a mental health crisis.
Carlson said jurors did not dispute that Clancy killed the children. "She did," Carlson said. "And she’s admitting that. We’re trying to figure out, did she know right from wrong at that time?" Carlson cited testimony and journal entries presented at trial as evidence supporting the defense contention that Clancy had been deeply attached to her children and thus may have been suffering a psychotic break.
Facts of the case and legal consequences
Clancy, 36, has admitted to strangling her three children with exercise bands on January 24, 2023, in the basement of their home in Duxbury, a suburb of Boston. After the killings she cut herself and jumped from a second-story window in an apparent suicide attempt that left her paralyzed.
If a jury or court were to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, she would be committed to a state psychiatric hospital for evaluation and her confinement would be subject to recurring judicial review. Prosecutors have not announced whether they will retry the case. If convicted of first-degree murder in a future trial, Clancy would face life in prison without the possibility of parole. She remains in custody at a state hospital.
Reflections from jurors
Juror Kellie Farina described the prosecution’s approach as "very, very harsh." The three jurors interviewed voiced disappointment that the panel was unable to reach unanimity on the central question of criminal responsibility. They said the deadlock, and the resulting mistrial, stemmed from the divergence between jurors who concluded Clancy had been in a psychotic state and a lone juror who would not agree to a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict despite expressing some doubt.
The outcome leaves the legal status of the case unresolved: the prosecution may decide whether to pursue a new trial, and the question of Clancy’s criminal culpability remains legally undecided.