‘There Wasn’t a Single Piece of Evidence’: Lindsay Clancy Jurors Say the Holdout Admitted ‘Reasonable Doubt’ but Still Wouldn’t Change the Vote
"But I'm still not going to say she's not guilty"
A lone holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial acknowledged having reasonable doubt. He still refused to change his vote to not guilty, according to fellow jurors who spoke publicly this week. Eleven of the 12 jurors had reached an 11-1 split favoring not guilty by reason of insanity, but no formal verdict was ever entered, since the holdout’s refusal led Judge William Sullivan to declare a mistrial instead.
According to ABC News, juror Nick Dargie said the holdout never backed his position with anything concrete. “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. “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.”
Jury foreperson Roni Carlson, who spoke to NBC Boston separately from Dargie, described a similar breakdown. “He had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt,” Carlson said. She recalled already filling out paperwork toward a decision before the holdout stopped her. “I started filling out the forms, I was so excited. There were three forms I had to fill out, and then he said, ‘But I’m still not going to say she’s not guilty.'”
What Clancy’s Defense Actually Argued in Court
Clancy had admitted in court to strangling her children with exercise bands. She argued she was overmedicated at the time, and that the combination of drugs she’d been prescribed for postpartum depression triggered a psychosis. Massachusetts jury instructions require prosecutors to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a defendant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense in order to establish criminal responsibility, according to the Massachusetts Court System.
Carlson said she personally concluded Clancy had “snapped” after hearing character witnesses describe her as a loving mother. In total, the jury of nine women and three men deliberated for more than 37 hours before reaching an impasse. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington attempted an emergency motion asking the court to force one more round of deliberations. The request was denied, and Sullivan declared the mistrial at Plymouth Superior Court last Friday.
With a retrial now possible, Reddington has since appealed directly to President Donald Trump, asking him to consider a pardon during an appearance on Good Morning America. He called Clancy “intelligent,” “hardworking,” and “such a wonderful, wonderful person.” He acknowledged he knew little about postpartum depression before taking her case. A presidential pardon carries no legal weight here, however, since Clancy faces state charges, not federal ones.
Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not said whether his office will pursue a retrial. “I appreciate the fact that there are strong feelings and opinions tied to this case,” he said outside the courthouse. “However, our job is to set aside our feelings and focus solely on the facts. The facts are Lindsay Clancy killed her three children and the evidence suggested to us that she was in control of her actions when she committed these homicides.”
Reddington and Cruz are scheduled to appear in court together on September 29 to determine next steps, a case that has already reshaped how strangers react to news of the trial far outside the courtroom itself.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
Follow The Mary Sue:
