Three jurors from the high-profile Lindsay Clancy trial are now speaking publicly about why they were prepared to acquit the Massachusetts mother of murder, before a single dissenting juror left the panel deadlocked and triggered a mistrial.
Clancy, 36, did not dispute that she strangled her three young children using exercise bands. Her defense, however, centered on her mental state, arguing that severe postpartum depression, combined with the effects of multiple prescribed medications, pushed her into a psychotic episode.
‘We weren’t trying to figure out if she murdered the children, she did and she’s admitting to that. We’re trying to figure out: Did she know right from wrong at that time?’ jury foreperson Roni Carlson told NBC Boston, describing the central question jurors wrestled with during deliberations.
Carlson said the testimony and evidence painted a consistent picture of a mother who deeply loved her children. ‘And with everybody saying she loved her children so much and everything proved she loved her children, from her journals to her mother-in-law, everything proved that she loved her children,’ she said. ‘So she had to have snapped.’
That conclusion led 11 of the 12 jurors to support finding Clancy not guilty of murder by reason of insanity, according to the women who served on the panel.
But a lone holdout on the jury refused to acquit the former labor and delivery nurse, prompting Judge William Sullivan to declare a mistrial in the case.
The three female jurors who spoke to NBC Boston now claim that the unidentified juror ‘would not interact with us and try to understand.’
‘He had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt,’ Carlson said.
‘I started filling out the forms, I was so excited. There were three forms I had to fill out, and then he said “but I’m still not going to say she’s not guilty.”‘
Lindsay Clancy, 36, faces a retrial after a jury of nine women and three men were unable to agree on whether she was guilty of the murders or manslaughter
Jury foreperson Roni Carlson told NBC Boston on Tuesday she was persuaded to find the mother-of-three not guilty by reason of insanity after hearing witnesses and journal entries describe how much she loved her children
Roni and two other female jurors opened up to NBC Boston about their frustrations with one juror who refused to acquit
The jury of nine women and three men ultimately spent more than 37 hours deliberating five-and-a-half weeks worth of evidence, as they deliberated whether Clancy was guilty of the murders or manslaughter of Cora, five, Dawson, three and eight-month-old Callan in January 2023.
As the one juror then refused to side with the others late Thursday and early Friday, defense attorney Kevin Reddington sought an emergency order to try and force jurors to enter one final round of deliberations.
READ MORE: Who Is Kelsie Cote? Inside Kevin Reddington’s Upcoming Murder Case
But the motion failed, and Judge Sullivan declared a mistrial at Plymouth Superior Court on Friday afternoon.
As a result, Clancy could face a retrial in the case.
In a desperate attempt to prevent that from happening, Reddington on Tuesday
pleaded with President Donald Trump to consider pardoning Clancy, describing her as a good person.
‘Mr President, I hope that you would consider this young lady, the type of person she is, what she’s been through, and consider a pardon,’ the lawyer said on Good Morning America.
He went on to describe Clancy as being ‘intelligent’ and ‘hardworking,’ while describing the strong bond he has with Clancy.
‘I do feel a very strong bond with Lindsay because of the type of person she is. She’s such a wonderful, wonderful person,’ the lawyer said as he acknowledged he didn’t know much about postpartum depression before taking on Clancy’s trial.
Clancy argued in court that she was overmedicated while suffering from postpartum depression and that the cocktail of drugs she was prescribed brought on a psychosis
Clancy was charged with murder after strangling her three children, Cora, five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan in 2023
George Stephanopoulos questioned the lawyer about his remarks at the end of the trial in which Reddington said he ‘crushed’ the prosecution, asking if he regretted them.
‘I don’t regret saying it at all,’ Reddington responded. ‘I think that the defense was very strong and I think it went in very well.
‘I think I perhaps could have been a little more circumspect dealing with [prosecutor] Tim Cruz, and instead of saying I crushed him, I could I have said I did a good job.’
Reddington then said that he was open to reaching a deal with Cruz, the District Attorney, so that Clancy did not need to go through another trial.
‘I’m willing to listen to Tim [Cruz]. I’ve known Tim for 30 years. I hope, however, after this trial, that he would revisit that issue and we could work something out that will be acceptable for both sides,’ he added.