Lindsay Clancy jurors share evidence that convinced them mum was not guilty
Three jurors who were tasked with deciding Lindsay Clancy's fate have revealed why they believe the mum 'had to have snapped'.
The nine women and three men were unable to reach a verdict after the harrowing five-week trial came to a close, despite deliberating for several days across a total of nearly 40 hours.
Members of the jury have since spoken out about the one holdout juror who Clancy's defence lawyer Kevin Reddington said 'refused to listen to the law', and why they think the former nurse was guilty by reason of insanity.
Clancy's future currently remains uncertain after the mistrial was declared. She is still being held at a psychiatric facility in Massachusetts and is charged with three counts of murder.
Advert
The 36-year-old's legal team did not dispute that she was behind the January 2023 killings of her three kids - Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and eight-month-old Callan.
However, her attorneys argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and therefore could not be held criminally responsible.
Reddington told the court that she could not distinguish right from wrong and acted upon auditory hallucinations, although prosecutors claimed she was compos mentis at the time of the killings.
There could have been a few different outcomes to the Clancy trial, depending on what the jury agreed upon, but the 12-person group were deadlocked.
After sitting through a litany of heart-wrenching evidence, the majority of the jurors are said to have been of the opinion that Clancy was not guilty by reason of insanity.
However, it has now been claimed that one man refused to agree with the verdict, despite saying he had ‘reasonable doubt’.
The jury's foreperson Roni Carlson told NBC10 Boston: "He admitted he had reasonable doubt and I started filling out the forms, I was so excited.
"I wrote my signature on each one and then he said, ‘But I’m still not going say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity'."
The former elementary school teacher also explained why the rest of the jury believed that Clancy did not premeditate the killings of her children.
"We weren't trying to figure out if she murdered the children, she did and she's admitting to that," Carlson continued.
"We're trying to figure out: Did she know right from wrong at that time? 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. So she had to have snapped."
Clancy's lawyer pleads with president
Clancy's lawyer has now personally called on US President Donald Trump to intervene.
During an appearance on Good Morning America, he said: “I'd like to say that perhaps Donald Trump, who felt compelled to speak out about this case.
“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.”
However, Reddington has since admitted that he knows Trump can’t grant a pardon in this case, as Clancy is not charged with any federal crimes, but explained why he called on the president anyway.
"The goal is pretty simple. It's to seek help from Trump," Reddington told WBZ shortly after his GMA appearance. "I mean, if President Trump feels that this is a case that warrants that type of intervention from, you know, the executive branch, even though legally it's not a federal case, he certainly has an awful lot of clout."
Following the mistrial announcement, President Trump spoke out about the case, branding it a ‘horrible tragedy’.
Speaking from the White House, he said: “It's a shame. It's a horrible tragedy. I see what's happened, and it looks like it's a hung jury.
“I think the judge has said it's going to be a mistrial, so there's going to be another trial. It's a terrible situation.
"Look, she did a horrible, horrible thing. Can't be worse. But you'll find out what the price to pay is. There'll be a price. It's going to be mental institution or jail or something, but I guess they're going to go through another trial.”
What else have jurors said about the Lindsay Clancy trial?
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, three 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 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'
The jury foreperson, 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.
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," the foreperson 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.
Topics: US News, Crime, Mental Health, Lindsay Clancy
Olivia Burke