Lindsay Clancy jurors open up on ‘very arrogant’ hold-out that refused to acquit, ‘He admitted he had reasonable doubt’

The trial of Lindsay Clancy ended dramatically last week when jurors confirmed that after a week of deliberation they were deadlocked and couldn’t reach a unanimous decision. A mistrial was declared and the fate of Clancy, who admitted to killing her three children but mounted a defense that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity, remains unknown.

Now three jurors are opening up on the drama inside the jury room and their unsuccessful battle to convince the one holdout to acquit. Speaking to NBC Boston, foreperson Roni Carlson and jurors Kellie Farina and Paula Devlin gave an hour-long interview in which they discussed their frustrations while attempting to reach a verdict.

Carlson claimed they came within a hair’s breadth of acquitting Clancy, saying that everyone present had accepted her defense, including the holdout, but he still refused to acquit: “He admitted he had reasonable doubt and I started filling out the forms, I was so excited”, but then he reportedly added, “But I’m still not going to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.”

“I started filling out the forms, I was so excited”

The jurors also say they engaged in loud and passionate arguments during deliberations, which apparently descended into name-calling at one point. As per The Guardian, juror Devlin described the holdout as “very arrogant,” saying that “He really did not take anything that anybody said.”

This corroborates with was what became known during the trial itself. On Sept. 3, Carlson passed a note to the court explaining that the holdout juror wasn’t following instructions on reasonable doubt of guilt. Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington petitioned to remove the holdout for not following procedure, but the judge declined to intervene, saying: “The note indicates that the juror has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it. That note does not indicate that the juror refuses to follow the law.”

Clancy’s defense attempted an emergency petition of the Massachusetts Supreme Court to remove the jury on the basis of bias against Clancy’s mental illness, but this was denied. The jury sent one final note: “It is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to” and a mistrial was declared.

What happens next is anyone’s guess. Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has confirmed (via CNN) that there is as yet no decision on whether to proceed with a retrial. In the same article, Reddington was bullish when asked if he’d do anything different in any retrial: “Why would I? I won the case.” The case continues to divide public opinion.