Mistrial in Lindsay Clancy case after holdout juror admits doubt but refuses acquittal

A mistrial in the case of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother accused of killing her three young children, was triggered by a single juror who acknowledged having reasonable doubt about her guilt but still would not vote to acquit, according to the jury's foreperson.

In a television interview aired Tuesday, foreperson Ronni Carlson described deliberations that ended without a unanimous verdict on whether Clancy was criminally responsible for the deaths. The judge declared a mistrial four days before the interview, after jurors failed to agree.

Clancy, a 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse, admitted to killing her children — 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan — in 2023. Her defense argued she was suffering from postpartum psychosis, a rare condition linked to hormonal changes, sleep deprivation, and stress after childbirth, which caused her to lose control of her mind.

Prosecutors, however, maintained that Clancy acted deliberately, strangling the children with exercise bands after sending her husband out to pick up medicine and dinner.

Carlson said she believed the holdout juror had been persuaded to vote for acquittal after deliberations. "He admitted he had reasonable doubt," she said. "I started filling out the forms... And then he said, 'But I'm still not going to say that she's not guilty by reason of insanity.'"

Carlson pointed to evidence such as Clancy's journals and testimony from her former mother-in-law as proof of her love for her children, concluding that Clancy "had to have snapped, and not known what she was doing."

The holdout juror has not yet publicly explained his position. Jurors' names have been temporarily sealed by the judge.

Over 21 days of testimony, the court heard about Clancy's deteriorating mental health after her youngest child's birth, from family members and medical providers. Jurors sent three notes indicating they were deadlocked, and the foreperson complained that one juror was not following instructions on reasonable doubt. The judge re-read the instructions and urged further deliberation.

Clancy's lawyer, Kevin Reddington, said he believed the jury was robbed by one man's stubbornness, which he said stole seven weeks of the other jurors' lives.

If convicted of murder, Clancy could have faced life in prison. An acquittal could have led to confinement in a mental health facility until she was deemed safe for release.