Lindsay Clancy Juror Says Panel Hoped Verdict Could Help Other Women

A juror who supported finding Massachusetts mother Lindsay Clancy not criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children said the panel saw the emotionally charged case as a possible catalyst for helping other women and families. A legal analyst, however, says that rationale raises serious concerns about how jurors should reach a verdict.

Paula Devlin, 65, one of 11 jurors who backed a finding that Clancy was not criminally responsible, told “CBS Saturday Morning” that the jurors believed their deliberations could have significance beyond the courtroom. “Even though we didn’t know what was going on outside of our little bubble that we were in, we knew that this was a turning point, and this would be something that could change something to make it better for other women in the future, for other families,” Devlin said. “You know, justice for those children is this never happening again.”

Devlin said the Lindsay Clancy murder trial jury was initially divided: eight jurors favored a finding of not criminally responsible, two had not yet made up their minds, and two — including the eventual holdout — were leaning toward guilt. The panel ultimately deadlocked 11-1, resulting in a mistrial.

Neama Rahmani, a Los Angeles trial attorney and legal analyst following the case, said Devlin’s comments point to a troubling approach to jury deliberations. “Devlin’s statement is problematic,” he told News Media. “Jurors are supposed to decide cases solely based on the facts of that case. In the Clancy case, they were to decide whether she was criminally responsible.”

Rahmani said jurors are tasked with applying the law to the evidence presented, rather than attempting to shape the law or influence broader social outcomes.

“It is not appropriate for the jurors to consider the impact of their decision on other women, children or cases,” Rahmani said.

Still, he added, there is little practical recourse after jurors have disclosed the thinking that guided their deliberations.

“Judge Sullivan already declared a mistrial and the law generally prohibits inquiry into juror deliberations,” he said. “There is an exception for outside influences that may prejudice the jury, but that would need an additional inquiry into whether the jurors considered information on traditional or social media or whether this was just Devlin’s interpretation of the importance of the case.”

Several jurors and Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington have claimed that the holdout at the end didn’t show his fellow jurors the evidence that he believed pointed toward guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

“If he had shown us some evidence, then we all would have been OK with that,” Devlin told CBS.

The holdout juror has not responded to News Media’s attempts to reach him and has not spoken publicly about the case as of Monday.

A GiveSendGo fundraiser to benefit him has raised over $115,000 in the past few days. According to the organizer, it is meant to cover “security, lawyers [and] lost work.”

Separately, Clancy’s husband Patrick Clancy vacationed in the Hamptons over the weekend, pictured with his new wife Rachel Danis at the Milk Pail farm stand on Montauk Highway in Water Mill, according to a photograph obtained by TMZ.

Lindsay Clancy has been accused of three counts of first-degree murder after the strangling deaths of her children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months. Her defense did not dispute that she killed them with exercise bands but instead argued that she was not criminally responsible due to postpartum psychosis.