Clancy trial jurors describe holdout frustration
Archived — this story has rotated out of today’s deck. It is kept here in full.
The gist
Three Lindsay Clancy jurors said one holdout blocked a unanimous verdict, forcing a mistrial.
The split mirrors a public divide over postpartum mental health and criminal responsibility.
Background
Lindsay Clancy was tried in Plymouth County Superior Court over the 2023 strangulation deaths of her three young children: Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months old. The monthlong trial ended in a mistrial last week after the jury of nine women and three men spent more than 38 hours deliberating and remained deadlocked. The case has deeply divided Americans, with some supporting the prosecution and others, especially women who report negative experiences with the postpartum mental healthcare system, expressing sympathy for Clancy.
How it unfolded
- recentlyThe monthlong Lindsay Clancy murder trial proceeded in Plymouth County Superior Court before Judge William Sullivan.
- recentlyThe jury deliberated for more than 38 hours; jurors sent notes to the court indicating they were split 11 to 1, with the majority at one point alleging the lone holdout was unable to follow the law on reasonable doubt.
- recentlyClancy's defense team filed an emergency appeal with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court asking it to order the trial court to further question the holdout juror or remove him, arguing he was identified by the foreperson as 'biased' and was 'refusing to follow the court's instructions on reasonable doubt.'
- Fri, Sep 4, 2026Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial and ordered that the jurors' names be sealed from the public for two weeks.
- Tue, Sep 8, 2026Three jurors spoke publicly for the first time in an exclusive interview with NBC10 Boston's Sue O'Connell, describing tense deliberations and frustration with the holdout.
- Thu, Sep 10, 2026Juror Nick Dargie told 'Good Morning America' that the holdout acted out the killings on a water bottle during deliberations.
Who’s saying what
- Jurors
- Three jurors said the holdout 'completely disregarded' information nurses on the panel provided about Clancy's toxicology report, was 'very arrogant,' and 'really did not take anything that anybody said.'
- Foreperson
- Forewoman Roni Carlson said the holdout 'admitted he had reasonable doubt' and she began filling out the forms, then he said, 'But I'm still not going to say that she's not guilty by reason of insanity.'
- Jurors
- Jurors were critical of the prosecution, with Farina describing it as 'harsh' compared with the defense's 'compassionate' style, and noted the prosecution presented no witnesses who said Clancy was a bad mother.
- Expert
- A legal expert said he was 'not surprised the majority was frustrated with the lone male holdout jury, especially if he acknowledged reasonable doubt and the state not meeting its burden,' adding that as long as jurors say they can follow the law, there is nothing trial or appellate judges can do if they misapply it.
Still unverified
The holdout juror has not been publicly identified. The defense's emergency appeal alleged the juror was 'biased' and 'refusing to follow the court's instructions on reasonable doubt,' and that his reasoning reflected a possible bias; these are allegations in a court filing, not established findings. The judge sealed jurors' names for two weeks.