'We let down Lindsay,' says juror who served in Clancy trial

PLYMOUTH, Mass. —

One of the jurors who served during the trial of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother accused of strangling her three children in 2023, shared with NewsCenter 5 that she felt a sense of failure after the case ended in a mistrial last week.

"Everybody says you're not supposed to feel like you failed, but you have a task to come out unanimous. And we tried everything we could to get to that end. And I feel like we let down Lindsay," said Paula, 65, of Whitman, who was one of the 12 deliberating jurors who heard the case.

Clancy's defense did not dispute that she killed the children but argued that she should not be found criminally responsible because she was in the throes of postpartum psychosis at the time. Her trial began with jury selection on July 20 and ended in a mistrial Sept. 4, with a single holdout preventing a unanimous verdict.

Paula said the majority viewpoint among the jurors was that Clancy should be found not guilty due to a lack of criminal responsibility — a legal principle often known as the insanity defense. She said the 11 jurors believed that Clancy needs help and added that she thinks the medical community should do more to support women with postpartum mental health issues.

"There was a clear indication that the medical community failed her and not just her, but her whole family, because something like that affects the whole entire family. And if everybody can be educated in a better way, then it will help the whole family unit," Paula said.

Paula said that the burden of the case was one they carried home each night throughout the experience.

"We couldn't talk about it, but you couldn't not think about what you had seen that day," she said.

After the long trial, Paula said the jurors were sent to deliberate with 297 pieces of evidence. That included the emotional 911 call, which, she said, some jurors had trouble reviewing during deliberations.

"We all tried to help each other. It was hard to separate the children from what our task was, and it was very emotional," she said.

According to Paula, the jurors polled themselves at the start of their deliberations. At that point, she said eight believed Clancy was not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility, two thought Clancy was guilty and two were undecided.

For Paula, and a majority of her fellow jurors, the eventual conclusion was "the thing that we thought was right." She said 11 ultimately came to believe Clancy was not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility.

"We did not start out 11 to 1," Paula said about the seven days of deliberation. "Everybody had different opinions and different reasons and different ways that they got there."

About the holdout juror

Paula said there was just one juror who wanted to vote to convict Clancy. She said the other jurors had trouble understanding why.

"We did not feel that he was following the law because he admitted that he had doubt at different times, that he had doubt about the case that was presented, and the way that the rule read to all the rest of us is if we had doubt, then we could not convict her of first-degree murder or second-degree murder or manslaughter," Paula said.

Eventually, the foreperson sent a note to the judge about the impasse. According to the defense, it said that a juror was refusing to apply the law.

Judge William Sullivan subsequently called each of the jurors up to his sidebar individually and asked if they could apply the law as he had explained it. Reporters in the courtroom saw them nod.

"The judge has to believe that people are telling him the truth. And so, you know, 11 people told the truth and one maybe didn't. And I will never know why," Paula said.

Earlier this week, juror Nick Dargie spoke with ABC News about his experience in the case.

Dargie, a 25-year-old military veteran, also described frustration in the deliberation room with the holdout juror.

"There was several times I would ask him to show us, like, 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 was why we ultimately sent in that note."

Paula said she believed it would have been worth starting deliberations over again with an alternate if the court had removed the holdout.

"If our holdout juror had given us evidence to support his reasoning, we would have felt differently about what we told the judge," Paula said.

Defense seeks finding from judge

On Thursday, the defense filed a motion arguing the prosecution failed to meet its burden and asking the judge to enter a required finding of not guilty in the case.

A required finding would prevent a retrial. The motion could be discussed at the hearing already scheduled for Sept. 29.

This content is imported from infogram. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Background of the Clancy case:

• Lindsay Clancy, 36, faces three murder charges in the 2023 deaths of her children, Cora, Dawson and Callan.
• She also jumped from a second-floor window, leaving her partially paralyzed.
• In a civil case, Lindsay Clancy alleges a "catastrophic failure" of multiple medical providers in diagnosing and treating her psychiatric condition.
• Her trial began July 20. Although her legal team offered to stipulate to the deaths of the children, she has pleaded not guilty.
• She is being held at Tewksbury State Hospital.

This case involves issues of mental health. If you or someone you know needs help, you can talk with the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by calling or sending a text message to 988, or you can chat online here.