Juror says lone holdout in Lindsay Clancy trial offered no evidence, leading to mistrial

A juror from the Lindsay Clancy trial said the single dissenting juror offered no evidence to support his vote, which helped produce an 11-1 split and a mistrial declared on Sept. 4. Nick Dargie, one of three jurors who spoke publicly, told ABC News that he repeatedly asked the holdout juror to cite testimony or proof, but the juror could not provide any.

"There was several times I would ask him to show us evidence or, you know, describe a witness testimony that helped to prove what he was saying, and ... he couldn't," Dargie said.

The jury had voted 11-1 for a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, but the lone juror maintained a position favoring conviction, prompting the foreperson to submit a note to Judge William Sullivan that resulted in the mistrial. Dargie described the holdout juror as disengaged, often scrolling on his phone and even handling an exercise band presented as evidence during deliberations.

"He took the exercise band out of the bag, grabbed an empty water bottle, and tied the band around the water bottle and pulled it," Dargie recounted.

Clancy, a former nurse, faces first-degree murder charges for the 2023 deaths of her three children in Duxbury, Massachusetts, and has pleaded not guilty. The trial focused on whether she suffered postpartum psychosis at the time of the killings, a condition defined as a psychiatric emergency by medical experts.

Attorney Howard Cooper, representing Clancy’s ex-husband Patrick, called for an end to online conspiracy theories falsely accusing him of the murders, stating that the spread of baseless falsehoods must stop and that legal action will be pursued. Clancy’s lawyer Kevin Reddington also condemned the rumors, describing them as reprehensible.

District Attorney Timothy Cruz said the office has not yet decided whether to retry Clancy and emphasized that the focus must remain on the facts, noting that prosecutors believe she acted with control over her actions.

The parties are scheduled to appear in court on Sept. 29 to discuss next steps. Dargie expressed belief that a retrial would likely result in a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict.

"I think if they tried the trial again the way they did, I think nine times out of 10, I think a jury would come back with not guilty by reason of insanity," he said.