Three jurors in Lindsay Clancy’s trial have claimed the lone holdout admitted having reasonable doubt during deliberations.
The women spoke to NBC10 Boston after a judge declared a mistrial in Lindsay Clancy’s case on Friday, September 4.
The 12-member panel remained split 11-1 after more than six days of deliberations. Their accounts centre on how reasonable doubt applied to Clancy’s criminal responsibility.
What Lindsay Clancy jurors claimed about the holdout
The foreperson said she began preparing three verdict forms after hearing the juror acknowledge doubt.
“He admitted he had reasonable doubt, and I started filling out the forms,” she told the broadcaster.
She claimed he then refused to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity.
Another juror alleged the man avoided engaging with the rest of the panel during deliberations. She said jurors repeatedly showed him Judge William Sullivan’s written definition of reasonable doubt.
According to her account, he remained focused on the violent nature of the children’s deaths.
A third juror called him “very arrogant” and said he dismissed evidence concerning medication. She cited the toxicology report and nurses’ testimony, which she said addressed one of his questions.
The three women included a retired chef and a retired teacher. The third had worked for government contractors.
The full jury comprised nine women and three men.
How the Lindsay Clancy mistrial unfolded
Jurors began deliberations on Thursday, August 27, following proceedings in Plymouth County Superior Court.
They told the judge three times that they were deadlocked. Judge Sullivan declared the mistrial after the panel failed to reach a unanimous verdict.
Jurors could consider first-degree murder, second-degree murder and manslaughter, not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity.
Clancy, 36, pleaded not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.
Why Lindsay Clancy’s criminal responsibility was disputed
Prosecutors alleged Clancy deliberately killed her three children at their Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in January 2023. Her children were aged five, three and eight months.
Defence lawyer Kevin Reddington argued she had postpartum psychosis and was overmedicated when the deaths occurred.
Clancy had worked as a labour and delivery nurse at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. After the deaths, she jumped from a second-storey window in an apparent suicide attempt. The fall left her paralysed from the waist down.
More than 80 witnesses testified, including medical experts, friends, police and Clancy’s former husband, Patrick.
Patrick told jurors she had built a snowman with the children hours before their deaths. He described her as happy and said it appeared to be one of her best days.
Patrick has since issued a statement via his lawyer to hit out at conspiracy theories regarding the case.
Patrick Clancy lawyer speaks out over ‘relentless’ conspiracy theories
Howard Cooper, an attorney at Todd & Weld who represents Patrick, told PEOPLE: “Over the past months, Patrick Clancy and his family have been subjected to a relentless, escalating and destructive defamation campaign.
“This campaign of misinformation has been launched and promoted by minor celebrities, so-called influencers and outright conspiracy theorists who appear intent on boosting their own social media profiles and potential profit by publishing what they know to be outright falsehoods that Patrick was somehow involved in the death of his young children and other vile claims.”
Cooper confirmed that law enforcement has been notified about the “baseless falsehoods”.
He said that as a result of the conspiracy theories, Patrick has faced “real life threats to his reputation, livelihood, and life”.
You can leave us a comment on our Facebook page @EntertainmentDailyFix.