(Headline USA) A lone juror blocked Lindsay Clancy from being acquitted, insisting he wouldn’t find her not guilty by reason of insanity despite saying during deliberations that he had reasonable doubt, the jury’s foreperson complained 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. 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.
In the interview with NBC10, three jurors described the seven days of deliberations that failed to produce a verdict.
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 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.
On three occasions, jurors sent the judge notes saying they were unable to reach a unanimous decision. Carlson also sent the judge a note complaining that a single juror wouldn’t follow the court’s instructions about reasonable doubt.
Juror Paula Devlin described that holdout juror as “arrogant.”
“He really did not take anything that anybody said,” she told NBC10.
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.
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. Clancy could face another trial.
Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press.
