Lindsay Clancy Juror Says Lone Holdout Could Cite 'Not a Single Piece of Evidence' Before 11-1 Mistrial

A juror in Lindsay Clancy's murder trial says the lone holdout could not point to evidence supporting his position before an 11-1 deadlock ended the high-profile case in a mistrial.

Nick Dargie, 25, said jurors repeatedly asked the man to identify testimony or exhibits that backed his insistence that Clancy should be convicted. Dargie claimed the holdout could not do so, even as the rest of the panel moved towards finding Clancy not criminally responsible for killing her three young children.

'There wasn't a single piece of evidence or witness testimony' supporting his position, Dargie said.

The five-week trial ended on 4 September after seven days of deliberations, with jurors unable to reach the unanimous verdict required under Massachusetts law.

Jurors Say Panel Reached 11-1 Split

Clancy, 36, pleaded not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility to three murder charges over the January 2023 deaths of her children, Cora, five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan, at the family's home in Duxbury, Massachusetts.

The central question at trial was not whether Clancy killed the children, but whether she was criminally responsible at the time.

Her defence argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and had been overmedicated. Prosecutors maintained that Clancy planned the killings and understood the difference between right and wrong.

Several jurors who have spoken publicly since the mistrial said the panel eventually stood 11-1 in favour of finding Clancy not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.

Dargie said the disagreement went beyond one man simply holding a different view. He claimed jurors repeatedly tried to understand what evidence supported the holdout's position.

The juror also alleged that the holdout at one point used the exercise band entered into evidence in an apparent demonstration involving a water bottle. Dargie said the incident shocked him because jurors were not there to conduct their own investigation.

The lone holdout has not been publicly identified.

Another juror, Paula Devlin, offered a more cautious account of the tense deliberations. She said the holdout may have felt attacked as other jurors challenged his position and that defending a minority view inside the room could have become increasingly difficult.

Defence Pushes To Stop Second Trial

The mistrial has now triggered a fresh legal battle over whether Clancy should face another jury.

Her lawyer, Kevin Reddington, has filed a motion asking Judge William Sullivan to enter a required finding of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, arguing prosecutors failed to prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reddington has also pointed to accounts from jurors about the holdout's conduct as part of his effort to prevent a retrial.

Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not yet announced whether prosecutors will try Clancy again. Following the mistrial, Cruz said his office would review the case and address its next move through the court process.

Clancy remains in custody and under psychiatric care at Tewksbury Hospital.

The two sides are due back in court on 29 September, when the defence motion is expected to be considered and the path forward could become clearer.

For jurors such as Dargie, however, the mistrial has left an unusually public dispute over what happened behind the jury-room door, and whether one vote prevented a verdict that 11 others were prepared to deliver.