Holdout in Lindsay Clancy trial said he had reasonable doubt but still wouldn't acquit, juror says

BOSTON (AP) — A lone juror blocked the acquittal of Lindsay Clancy , despite acknowledging during deliberations that he had doubts about her guilt, the jury’s foreperson said in a TV interview Tuesday.

The interview with Boston’s NBC10 aired four days after a judge declared a mistrial when jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict on the question of whether Clancy was criminally responsible for killing her three young children in 2023.

Clancy, a 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse, never disputed that she killed the children. But her attorney said she had lost control of her mind due to a rare condition called postpartum psychosis , a rare mental illness linked to the stress, sleep deprivation and hormonal changes that follow childbirth.

Prosecutors said Clancy knew what she was doing and acted deliberately when she strangled 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan Clancy with exercise bands. They said she contrived to get her husband out of the house by sending him to pick up medicine for one of their children and dinner for the family.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This story includes discussion of suicide. If you or someone you know needs help, the national suicide and crisis lifeline in the U.S. is available by calling or texting 988.

In the interview with NBC10, three jurors described the deliberations.

Foreperson Ronni Carlson said she thought at one point that the group had finally persuaded the juror arguing for a conviction to vote for an acquittal.

“He admitted he had reasonable doubt. I started filling out the forms, I was so excited. There were three forms I had to fill out, and I started filling them out. I wrote my signature on each one.

And then he said, 'But I'm still not going to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.'”

The evidence proved Clancy loved her children, said Carlson, who pointed to Clancy’s journals and testimony from her former mother-in-law. “So she had to have snapped, and not known what she was doing. To me, it was proof that she didn’t know what she was doing.”

The names of the jurors have been temporarily sealed by the judge, and the holdout juror has not yet come forward and given a public account of what happened inside the jury room.

Over 21 days of testimony, jurors heard how Clancy’s mental health collapsed after the birth of her youngest child. They heard from Clancy’s family members, who described her decline, and medical providers who treated her in the months ahead of the killings.

On three occasions, jurors sent the judge notes saying they were unable to reach a unanimous decision. The jury’s foreperson also sent a note complaining that a single juror wouldn’t follow the court’s instructions about reasonable doubt. Judge William Sullivan questioned the jurors, re-read his instructions regarding reasonable doubt, then asked them to keep trying to agree on a verdict.

Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, previously said he believed Clancy would have been acquitted if not for the stubbornness of a single juror.

Jurors know "they were robbed by one man, for whatever his agenda was, who stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurors that were so attentive, so beautiful, so wonderful,” he said.

Clancy could have been sentenced to life in prison if convicted of murder. If acquitted, the judge could have ordered her confined to a mental health facility until a mental health evaluation determined she would no longer be a danger to the public if released.