Jurors Describe Holdout Juror as Arrogant in Lindsay Clancy Murder Trial Mistrial
Three jurors said a single holdout juror repeatedly dismissed evidence and refused to apply the reasonable-doubt standard, leading Judge William Sullivan to declare a mistrial in the case of Lindsay Clancy.
Three members of the jury in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial told NBC10 Boston that a single juror repeatedly dismissed evidence and refused to consider a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict, contributing to Judge William Sullivan’s decision to declare a mistrial after a week of deadlocked deliberations.
Foreperson Roni Carlson said the holdout juror admitted he had reasonable doubt but still would not vote for a not-guilty verdict, prompting her to request that the judge remove him. Judge Sullivan re-instructed the panel on the legal definition of reasonable doubt but declined to dismiss the juror, stating it would be inappropriate to favor one side.
Juror Paula Devlin recalled the holdout asking about a toxicology report and then ignoring the information provided. Another juror, Kellie Farina, said the juror repeatedly asked the judge to reread the reasonable-doubt instruction, which the panel had already reviewed.
The defense argued that Clancy suffered postpartum psychosis and therefore lacked criminal responsibility, while prosecutors maintained she acted deliberately. The jurors emphasized that their task was to determine whether Clancy understood right from wrong at the time of the killings, not whether she committed the acts.
Jurors also described the emotional impact of hearing a 911 call from Clancy’s ex-husband after the children’s bodies were discovered, noting that some needed headphones or music to cope with the distressing audio.
Following the mistrial, Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said he will decide whether to retry the case, adding that any decision will be based on the evidence and the law rather than public opinion.