Three female jurors in the Clancy trial speak out, revealing why one lone juror remained firmly opposed to the majority’s decision
Three women who served as jurors in the Lindsay Clancy trial have opened up about their decision to find the mother-of-three not guilty of murder before one holdout juror forced a mistrial.
Clancy, 36, had admitted to strangling her children with exercise bands, but argued in court that she was overmedicated while suffering from postpartum depression and that the cocktail of drugs she was prescribed brought on a psychosis.
‘We weren’t trying to figure out if she murdered the children, she did and she’s admitting to that. We’re trying to figure out: Did she know right from wrong at that time?’ jury foreperson Roni Carlson recounted to NBC Boston.
‘And with everybody saying she loved her children so much and everything proved she loved her children, from her journals to her mother-in-law, everything proved that she loved her children,’ Carlson continued. ‘So she had to have snapped.’
Based on that evidence, 11 of the 12 jurors were ready to find Clancy not guilty of murder by reason of insanity.
But a lone holdout on the jury refused to acquit the former labor and delivery nurse, prompting Judge William Sullivan to declare a mistrial in the case.
The three female jurors who spoke to NBC Boston now claim that the unidentified juror ‘would not interact with us and try to understand.’
‘He had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt,’ Carlson said.
‘I started filling out the forms, I was so excited. There were three forms I had to fill out, and then he said “but I’m still not going to say she’s not guilty.”‘
+6
View gallery
Lindsay Clancy, 36, faces a retrial after a jury of nine women and three men were unable to agree on whether she was guilty of the murders or manslaughter
+6
View gallery
Jury foreperson Roni Carlson told NBC Boston on Tuesday she was persuaded to find the mother-of-three not guilty by reason of insanity after hearing witnesses and journal entries describe how much she loved her children
+6
View gallery
Roni and two other female jurors opened up to NBC Boston about their frustrations with one juror who refused to acquit
The jury of nine women and three men ultimately spent more than 37 hours deliberating five-and-a-half weeks worth of evidence, as they deliberated whether Clancy was guilty of the murders or manslaughter of Cora, five, Dawson, three and eight-month-old Callan in January 2023.
As the one juror then refused to side with the others late Thursday and early Friday, defense attorney Kevin Reddington sought an emergency order to try and force jurors to enter one final round of deliberations.
But the motion failed, and Judge Sullivan declared a mistrial at Plymouth Superior Court on Friday afternoon.
As a result, Clancy could face a retrial in the case.
In a desperate attempt to prevent that from happening, Reddington on Tuesday
pleaded with President Donald Trump to consider pardoning Clancy, describing her as a good person.
‘Mr President, I hope that you would consider this young lady, the type of person she is, what she’s been through, and consider a pardon,’ the lawyer said on Good Morning America.
He went on to describe Clancy as being ‘intelligent’ and ‘hardworking,’ while describing the strong bond he has with Clancy.
‘I do feel a very strong bond with Lindsay because of the type of person she is. She’s such a wonderful, wonderful person,’ the lawyer said as he acknowledged he didn’t know much about postpartum depression before taking on Clancy’s trial.
+6
View gallery
Clancy argued in court that she was overmedicated while suffering from postpartum depression and that the cocktail of drugs she was prescribed brought on a psychosis
+6
View gallery
Clancy was charged with murder after strangling her three children, Cora, five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan in 2023
Do YOU agree Lindsay Clancy should be found not guilty by reason of insanity?
George Stephanopoulos questioned the lawyer about his remarks at the end of the trial in which Reddington said he ‘crushed’ the prosecution, asking if he regretted them.
‘I don’t regret saying it at all,’ Reddington responded. ‘I think that the defense was very strong and I think it went in very well.
‘I think I perhaps could have been a little more circumspect dealing with [prosecutor] Tim Cruz, and instead of saying I crushed him, I could I have said I did a good job.’
Reddington then said that he was open to reaching a deal with Cruz, the District Attorney, so that Clancy did not need to go through another trial.
‘I’m willing to listen to Tim [Cruz]. I’ve known Tim for 30 years. I hope, however, after this trial, that he would revisit that issue and we could work something out that will be acceptable for both sides,’ he added.
SOURCE: DAILY MAIL
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16116063/Lindsay-Clancy-jurors-evidence-not-guilty.html
