Brother of Lindsay Clancy holdout juror explains why he refused to agree on not guilty verdict
Warning: This article contains mentions of child death that some readers may find upsetting
The brother of the juror who didn't agree with the rest in the Lindsay Clancy trial has spoken out against some of the online rumours that have been circulated about why he was a holdout.
Lindsay Clancy's defence does not contest that she killed her three children but were arguing that she should be found not guilty by reason of insanity, and many of the jurors appeared to find their arguments convincing.
However, they couldn't reach a unanimous verdict and in Massachusetts one is required meaning that a mistrial was declared, making it possible that the whole trial will be done again in the future.
Advert
With the Clancy case garnering much public attention and discussion much attention has been directed at the jury and especially the holdout who didn't vote with the others.
Now the juror's brother has told the New York Post that he 'looked at the case, and he made the call', and was not influenced by religion as some online commenters had been claiming.
A whole slew of claims and theories have been advanced online regarding the reasons why the holdout juror didn't agree with everyone else but his brother disputed those, saying: "I don’t think religion had anything to do with it."
The brother added that the family had been hounded ever since a mistrial was declared, saying the juror 'didn’t tell us anything' about the trial so they don't have anything to say to the true crime fans looking for the latest thing.
He said: "My family cannot leave the house.
"They are leaving notes at my mother’s house. They won’t leave us alone and we don’t know anything.
“People have been calling me like crazy. It’s crazy.”
If there is another trial for Clancy then the new jury selected will struggle not to have noticed the pressure and attention placed on them and their families.
The holdout juror was offered 'asylum' in Florida after reporting from NBC10 that he had a history of allegations of domestic violence and a restraining order against him taken out by his nephew.
The juror had been charged in 2021 for allegedly assaulting his wife at the time, though the charges were later dismissed and the couple divorced.
Other jurors have also spoken about their conduct, claiming that the holdout 'thought there was too much blood in the bedroom' and criticised the tone of the discussions in their deliberations.
Another claimed that the holdout wrapped an exercise band around a water bottle in an impression of the way Clancy strangled her children to death, and when asked which piece of evidence or testimony that had him set on a guilty verdict he couldn't point to a specific example.
Everything else jurors have said about the Lindsay Clancy trial so far
In the US, once a trial is over, jurors are allowed to speak out about the case they were assigned to and what happened in their deliberations. So far, five jurors have opted to go public about what went on during the high-profile trial.
All but one agreed on a not guilty by insanity verdict
The foreperson, Roni Carlson, confirmed that they had all agreed to return a not guilty verdict, having not been swayed by the prosecution's case; however, one holdout juror refused to find Clancy not guilty by insanity, resulting in a mistrial being declared.
Deliberations filled with 'lots of crying'
Carlson, a retired fifth-grade teacher, admitted it was 'heartbreaking' to be unable to reach a unanimous verdict in the case, adding that the deliberations were filled with 'lots of crying' and 'lots of tears and then hugging'.
"I was so sad, so sad that we couldn't come up with a verdict for Lindsay. It was so heartbreaking," she said.
Holdout juror 'admitted he had reasonable doubt'
According to Carlson, the entire 12-person jury had agreed on a not guilty by insanity verdict, apart from one, who she said was male.
She told NBC he 'admitted he had reasonable doubt and I started filling out the forms, I was so excited'.
However, when she was partway through filling out the three verdict sheets, she claims he told the group: "But I'm still not going to say that she's not guilty by reason of insanity."
The holdout juror was a point of contention in the emotionally charged trial after Clancy's defence team attempted to lodge a last-minute appeal alleging the juror was 'biased' and not following the court's instructions on reasonable doubt. The appeal was unsuccessful.
Deliberations led to fights and shouting
The group deliberated for a total of nearly 40 hours, which resulted in a lot of yelling which could be heard through the walls, according to the three jurors interviewed by NBC.
"We weren't trying to figure out if she murdered the children. She did and she's admitted that," Carlson explained. "We're trying to figure out - did she know right from wrong at that time."
Holdout juror supposedly questioned toxicology reports
Another juror, who works for a government defence contractor, said the lone juror was questioning the meds Clancy was prescribed leading up to the deaths of her three children: "We had the toxicology reports. We could see exactly the amounts."
The juror added that nurses on the panel were discussing this but the holdout juror 'just completely disregarded the information that they gave'.
The lone juror in question has not spoken out.
"Everything proved that she loved her children"
The foreperson told NBC that they weren't convinced by the prosecution's case, saying that Clancy 'had to have snapped and not known what she was doing'.
Prosecutors were 'very, very harsh'
The third juror to go public, a chef at a senior centre, said she found the prosecutors to be 'very, very harsh'.
"They had no character witness in regard to Lindsay of being a bad mother," they added.
Listening to the 911 audio was 'the most horrific thing'
When asked about the 911 call Patrick Clancy placed which was played in court, one of the jurors admitted, 'it’s something I will never not hear if I think about it'.
"It was the most horrific thing.
“When we heard it again in the jury room, we were crying again. We were just like, ‘Oh my God.’
“The desperation, the despair in his voice was again, it's something that will stick with me.
“I felt that it was genuine. It was absolutely genuine. There's no doubt about that.”
The forewoman added: "There were jurors that had to put in their ear pods and just could not hear it again. They had to turn up their music and put it in because it just it was too much.”
Holdout juror accused of being 'very arrogant'
Paula Devlin claimed the juror 'was very arrogant'. "He really did not take anything that anybody said," she added, with another juror, Kellie Farina, alleging that he 'would not interact with us'.
Anonymous juror says there was 'too much doubt' to reach a guilty verdict
A fourth juror, who opted to remain anonymous, spoke to WBZ-TV's Kristina Rex and said: "At the end of the day, there was so much doubt. The prosecution didn't have a figurative smoking gun.
"There was not a single moment throughout the presentation of that case where you could say 'Yup, 100% I'm certain she did it' or that she didn't do it. There was too much gray area."
There was 'no evidence' for why holdout juror was thinking the way he was
Nick Dargie, one of the three men on the jury, told ABC News' Aaron Katersky that the lone juror didn't provide anything to back up why he disagreed with the group.
"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," he said. "There wasn't a single piece of evidence or witness testimony that he used to prove why he was thinking the way he was, which is why we ultimately sent in that note.
"Otherwise, like there's nothing wrong with somebody having a completely opposite opinion ... that would be a hung jury. That, like that, is our justice system."
The note is referring to what the jury sent the judge, leading to the mistrial.
Topics: US News, Lindsay Clancy
Joe Harker