US6 min(s) read
The first male juror in Lindsay Clancy's trial has spoken about a "note" sent to the judge.
Nick Dargie, 25, is the first of the three male jurors to publicly discuss what happened inside the jury room after Clancy’s high-profile trial ended without a verdict.
Dargie said he was "devastated" that the jury did not return a not guilty verdict for the 36-year-old, who was accused of murdering her three young children in January 2023.
After five weeks of testimony and seven days of deliberations, the jury of nine women and three men was unable to reach a unanimous decision.
Eleven jurors favored finding Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, according to jurors who have since spoken publicly, while one male juror maintained his opposing position.
Dargie told ABC News that he repeatedly asked the holdout to identify evidence supporting his view.
"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.
"Otherwise, like there's nothing wrong with somebody having a completely opposite opinion ... that would be a hung jury. That, like that, is our justice system," he added.
The jury’s note became a major point of contention in the final stages of deliberations.
The foreperson said one juror was not following Judge William Sullivan’s instructions on reasonable doubt, prompting the judge to question the jurors privately and repeat the legal instructions.
Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, tried to have the holdout removed by arguing that he was refusing to properly apply the law.
However, Sullivan declined the request, stating: "The note indicates that the juror has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it."
But he added: "That note does not indicate that the juror refuses to follow the law."
Prosecutors also opposed removing the juror, arguing that the disagreement could concern how reasonable doubt was being interpreted.
"We are in no position to judge if the 11 are right or the one is right," Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague said. "There is no indication that the juror is intentionally trying to mislead the court or lie to the court."
After Sullivan again explained reasonable doubt, the jury returned to deliberations.
The following day, he declared a mistrial after the panel remained deadlocked, despite a last-minute appeal by Clancy’s defense to the Supreme Court.
Clancy’s defense did not dispute that she killed her children, Cora, five, Dawson, three, and Callan, but argued she could not be held criminally responsible because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and severe mental illness at the time.
Several jurors have slammed the holdout since the trial ended.
Foreperson Roni Carlson said the juror at one point acknowledged having reasonable doubt, leading her to believe the jury had finally reached a verdict.
"He admitted he had reasonable doubt, and I started filling out the forms," Carlson told NBC 10 Boston.
"I was so excited. There were three forms I had to fill out, and I started filling them out. I wrote my signature on each one, and then he said, 'But I’m still not going say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.'"
Carlson, a retired fifth-grade teacher, described the failure to reach a verdict as "heartbreaking" and said deliberations involved "lots of crying" and "lots of tears and then hugging".
"I was so sad, so sad that we couldn't come up with a verdict for Lindsay. It was so heartbreaking," she said, per BBC News.
Another juror said the panel repeatedly showed the holdout Sullivan’s definition of reasonable doubt.
"We read to him on numerous occasions the definition of reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan’s instruction," she said.
"He actually said one day in the end, 'Why don’t we have the judge come in and read it again?' And we were like, 'No. We have it in front of us. We don’t need that.' And we would highlight it and, you know, so and so, this is the definition of reasonable doubt. But he had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children," per PEOPLE.
The jury deliberated for nearly 40 hours, with jurors later describing arguments and shouting that could be heard through the walls.
"We weren't trying to figure out if she murdered the children. She did and she's admitted that," Carlson said. "We're trying to figure out - did she know right from wrong at that time."
Clancy has returned to Tewksbury Hospital, where she has been held since February 2023.
Reddington has indicated that he would be willing to discuss an agreement with District Attorney Tim Cruz that could prevent another trial.
"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," he told Good Morning America.
Reddington has also publicly appealed to President Donald Trump to consider a pardon.
"Mr President, I hope that you would consider this young lady, the type of person she is, what's been through, and consider a pardon," he said.
Trump had previously described the case as a "horrible tragedy" while speaking at the White House.
"It's a shame. It's a horrible tragedy. I see what's happened and it looks like it's a hung jury," Trump said. "I think the judge has said it's going to be a mistrial, so there's going to be another trial.
"It's a terrible situation. Look, she did a horrible, horrible thing. Can't be worse.
"But you'll find out what the price to pay is. There'll be a price. It's going to be mental institution or jail or something, but I guess they're going to go through another trial," he added.
Clancy’s case is due to return to court on September 29 for status, trial assignment, and a motion concerning Rule 25.
