Woman on Lindsay Clancy jury reveals shocking confession about lone holdout juror

A second juror from Lindsay Clancy's trial has spoken out, saying there was too much 'doubt' for her to personally reach a guilty verdict.

Arguably the most talked-about trial of 2026, Clancy faced triple murder charges over the deaths of her three young children, Cora, Dawson and Callan, in January 2023.

The 36-year-old does not deny the fact that she fatally strangled her children, with her defence instead arguing that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and command hallucinations at the time of their deaths, meaning she cannot be held criminally responsible for her actions.

The trial ultimately collapsed after jurors were deadlocked 11 to one over whether or not she met the legal threshold for insanity. A second juror has now spoken out about the trial, saying there was too much doubt for her to convict Clancy.

"At the end of the day, there was so much doubt," the woman, who spoke to CBS on condition of anonymity, said.

(Greg Derr / POOL / AFP via Getty Images)

"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 grey area."

The woman's comments come as the jury's foreperson Roni Carlson told NBC10 Boston that the majority of jurors had been in favour of finding Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity.

However, the group were unable to reach a unanimous verdict after one man refused to agree, despite having ‘reasonable doubt’.

Everything jurors have 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 in an interview with Boston NBC affiliate NBC10.

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.

Holdout juror 'admitted he had reasonable doubt'

According to the jury foreperson, 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," 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.

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'

One of the jurors claimed he 'was very arrogant. He really did not take anything that anybody said', with another alleging that he 'would not interact with us'.