Juror Says She Felt She Let Down Lindsay Clancy After Mistrial

A juror who served on the trial of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother charged with killing her three children, told NewsCenter 5 that she feels she let the defendant down after the case resulted in a mistrial last week. The 65-year-old juror, identified only as Paula, said the jury’s task was to reach a unanimous decision and that the majority of jurors believed Clancy should be found not guilty because she lacked criminal responsibility, a legal concept often referred to as the insanity defense.

Clancy’s defense did not dispute that she killed the children but argued she was experiencing postpartum psychosis at the time. The trial began with jury selection on July 20 and concluded on September 4 when a single holdout juror prevented a unanimous verdict. Paula said eight jurors initially thought Clancy was not guilty, two thought she was guilty and two were undecided; after deliberations, 11 jurors concluded she should not be held criminally responsible.

"Everybody says you're not supposed to feel like you failed, but you have a task to come out unanimous. And we tried everything we could to get to that end. And I feel like we let down Lindsay," Paula said.

She added that the jurors felt the medical community failed Clancy and her family, and that better education on postpartum mental health could help families in similar situations.

During deliberations, the jurors reviewed 297 pieces of evidence, including an emotional 911 call that some found difficult to revisit. The holdout juror, who voted to convict, was described by Paula as not following the law because he expressed doubt about the case despite the legal standard that doubt should preclude a conviction for first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or manslaughter.

The foreperson sent a note to Judge William Sullivan indicating an impasse. The judge then questioned each juror individually at his sidebar, and all but the holdout juror affirmed they could apply the law as explained.

"The judge has to believe that people are telling him the truth. And so, you know, 11 people told the truth and one maybe didn't. And I will never know why," Paula said.

Another juror, Nick Dargie, told ABC News that the holdout could not cite specific evidence or testimony to support his position. Paula suggested that, had the holdout provided supporting evidence, the jury might have reached a different conclusion.

The defense has filed a motion asking the judge to enter a required finding of not guilty, which would bar a retrial. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for September 29.