Eleven of the twelve jurors in the Lindsay Clancy trial were reportedly ready to find the mum not guilty of murdering her three children after deciding that evidence of her love for them showed she ‘had to have snapped’.
Clancy, 36, doesn’t deny strangling five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson and eight-month-old Callan with exercise bands. The children were killed by their mother in the basement of the family’s home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, on January 24, 2023.
The former labor and delivery nurse pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, officially described in the state as a lack of criminal responsibility. Her lawyers argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and had been overmedicated before the killings.
Prosecutors maintained that Clancy understood what she was doing and acted deliberately. They argued that she had arranged for her then-husband Patrick to leave the house by asking him to collect medicine and takeaway food.
More than five weeks of evidence failed to produce a verdict, with jurors later saying that the panel had ultimately split 11 to one in favour of not guilty on the grounds of insanity.
Three female jurors have since spoken publicly about how they reached their decision and why they couldn’t persuade the unidentified holdout.
Their account also offered a glimpse of how emotion, as well as the medical evidence, shaped the deliberations.
‘We weren’t trying to figure out if she murdered the children,’ foreperson Roni Carlson told NBC10 Boston. ‘She did and she’s admitting to that. We’re trying to figure out: Did she know right from wrong at that time?’
Carlson said that Clancy’s journals and evidence from relatives consistently portrayed her as a devoted mother. For the foreperson, that became a central reason to believe that she hadn’t understood her actions at the time of the murders.
‘Everything proved that she loved her children, so she had to have snapped and not known what she was doing,’ she said. ‘That to me was proof she didn’t know what she was doing.’
Love for her children didn’t, by itself, prove that Clancy met the legal test for a lack of criminal responsibility, though. The jurors nevertheless said it contributed to their conclusion when considered alongside the evidence about her deteriorating mental health.
Patrick’s anguished 911 call after discovering the children also had a powerful effect on the panel. Juror Kellie Farina said they played the recording again during their deliberations and were reduced to tears.
‘We were just like, “My God, the desperation,”’ Farina said. ‘The despair in his voice was… it’s something that will stick with me.’
Farina was considerably less moved by the prosecution, describing its approach as ‘harsh’, ‘very cold’ and ‘biased right out of the gate’.
She acknowledged that prosecutors had a difficult job while arguing that they should have shown greater compassion.
‘I know it’s their job, but in a case like this, you expect a little bit,’ she said.
Prosecutors had argued that the horrific nature of the killings and evidence of planning showed Clancy knew that her actions were wrong.
The jurors directed their sharpest criticism, however, at the man whose vote prevented them returning a verdict.
Carlson said that he acknowledged having reasonable doubt, leading her to believe that the impasse had finally been broken.
‘I started filling out the forms, I was so excited,’ she recalled. ‘There were three forms I had to fill out, and then he said, “But I’m still not going to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity”.’
Juror Paula Devlin called the man ‘very arrogant’, while another juror said he ‘would not interact with us and try to understand’. Devlin added: ‘He really did not take anything that anybody said.’
defense lawyer Kevin Reddington unsuccessfully sought another round of deliberations before Sullivan ended the trial. Prosecutors haven’t announced whether they intend to try Clancy again, with the case due back in court on September 29.
Reddington has since asked President Trump to consider pardoning his client, describing her as an intelligent, hardworking and ‘wonderful’ person.
Presidential pardons apply to federal offenses rather than Massachusetts state charges, however, so Trump has no power to grant the request.
‘Mr President, I hope that you would consider this young lady, the type of person she is, what she’s been through, and consider a pardon,’ Reddington told Good Morning America.
He also said he would listen to any proposal from Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz that could avoid a second trial.
Reddington stood by declaring that he had ‘crushed’ the prosecution’s case, although he admitted that he might have chosen a more restrained way of celebrating a trial that ended without a verdict. ‘Instead of saying I crushed him, I could have said I did a good job,’ he conceded.
Clancy remains in custody at a state psychiatric hospital and is due back in court on September 29.
Prosecutors could seek another trial, negotiate a plea agreement or dismiss the charges, although no decision has yet been announced.