Three jurors in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial opened up in interviews about the true nature behind the declared mistrial. Each suggested the jury leaned 11-1 toward finding the Massachusetts mother not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility. 

However, one stubborn male juror stood in their way, despite admitting “he had reasonable doubt.”

Juror Admitted Reasonable Doubt

A few of the jury members spoke with NBC10 in an exclusive interview following the mistrial of Lindsay Clancy, a mother accused of killing her three children in 2023. The jury’s foreperson Roni Carlson, alongside two of her female companion jurors, said that the lone male juror “admitted he had reasonable doubt, and I started filling out the forms; 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 to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity,’” Carlson said.

Each of the three jurors–Roni Carlson, a former elementary school teacher, Kellie Farina, a senior center chef, and Paula Devlin, a defense contractor–also criticized the prosecution’s efforts, and found that defense attorney Kevin Reddington had a better approach.

One Juror Holdout

Lindsay Clancy’s trial lasted over six weeks with over 80 witnesses from both sides, and eight days of deliberation, only to end in a mistrial. The jury returned to the judge three times, saying they couldn’t reach a unanimous decision. Judge William Sullivan did all he could before declaring a mistrial on Friday, September 4, 2026.

Sullivan even spoke with each juror, confirming they were able and willing to follow the law and court guidelines, but it is clear that one juror could not set aside his bias and declare Clancy not guilty by lack of criminal liability. 

The jury, consisting of nine women and three men, spent nearly 40 hours deliberating, trying their best to reach a unanimous verdict in this highly controversial case. The jury was split 11-1 throughout deliberations, but the lone holdout juror stood his ground, refusing to follow the law on reasonable doubt, which wasted everyone’s time and taxpayers’ dollars.

Child Murders

Clancy, 36, controversially admitted guilt to strangling her three young children in the family’s basement of their Duxbury, Massachusetts home on January 24, 2023. However, her attorney argued throughout trial that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis, and that mental illness led to the unexpected killings of her children. 

The mother attempted suicide after and threw herself out a second-story window, and was found shortly after by her husband, Patrick Clancy, who has faced extreme criticism throughout the six weeks of trial.

No Question She Loved Them

Carlson said he found there was no doubt Clancy murdered her children, but that he and the rest of the jury saw how much she loved them. “We weren’t trying to figure out if she murdered the children. She did, and she’s admitting that. We’re trying to figure out did she know right from wrong at that time,” Carlson said. 

“Everything proved that she loved her children, so she had to have snapped,” she said, noting the testimony from her mother-in-law and her diary entries presented in court.

Thoughts on The Holdout

Kellie Farina, another jury member, spoke on the sole holdout, describing how the group had to constantly point him to the judge’s instructions on reasonable doubt. “He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children,” Farina said.

“Every one of us in the hours of our frustration would get up and walk the room, because you just couldn’t sit anymore,” she continued. 

The third juror interviewed, Paula Devlin, said the holdout juror disregarded information some of his fellow jurors provided about Clancy’s toxicology report. “He was very arrogant,” Devlin said. “He really did not take anything that anybody said.”