Eleven jurors in the Lindsay Clancy trial were ready to acquit the mother of three by reason of insanity, but a lone holdout juror ultimately forced a mistrial, according to three women who served on the jury.
Clancy, 36, admitted to strangling her children, Cora, five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan, in January 2023. Her defense argued that she was overmedicated and suffering from postpartum depression, which led to psychosis. The jury deliberated for over 37 hours across five-and-a-half weeks.
"We weren't trying to figure out if she murdered the children, she did and she's admitting to that. We're trying to figure out: Did she know right from wrong at that time?" jury foreperson Roni Carlson told NBC Boston. Carlson stated that evidence, including Clancy's journals and testimony from her mother-in-law, indicated that Clancy loved her children, leading the jurors to believe she "had to have snapped."
Based on this, 11 of the 12 jurors were prepared to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity. However, one juror refused to acquit, prompting Judge William Sullivan to declare a mistrial. The three female jurors who spoke to NBC Boston claimed the unidentified juror "would not interact with us and try to understand."
"He had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt," Carlson said. "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.'"
Clancy's defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, sought an emergency order to compel further deliberations, but the motion failed. Clancy could now face a retrial.
Reddington has appealed to President Donald Trump for a pardon for Clancy, describing her as a "good person" and acknowledging he learned about postpartum depression through the trial. He also expressed openness to a plea deal with District Attorney Tim Cruz to avoid another trial, stating he had known Cruz for 30 years.
"I'm willing to listen to Tim [Cruz]. I've known Tim for 30 years. I hope, however, after this trial, that he would revisit that issue and we could work something out that will be acceptable for both sides," Reddington said.
Reddington also addressed his earlier controversial comments about "crushing" the prosecution, stating he stood by the strength of the defense but could have been more diplomatic in his remarks about the prosecutor. He indicated a desire to resolve the case without a lengthy retrial.