Juror Says Lindsay Clancy Panel Saw Trial as Way to Support Other Women, Attorney Calls It Problematic

One of the 11 jurors in the Lindsay Clancy case saw the trial as a way to support other women, but a legal analyst doesn't.

This comes after the trial was declared a mistrial after a long week of deliberations, when the jury failed to come to a conclusion following a sole holdout among the jurors.

In an interview with CBS News Sunday Morning over the weekend, Paula Devlin, 65, shared her candid thoughts as one of the 11 jurors in Clancy's case.

She said, "Even though we didn't know what was going on outside of our little bubble that we were in, we knew that this was a turning point, and this would be something that could change something to make it better for other women in the future, for other families."

"You know, justice for those children is this never happening again," Devlin said.

According to Devlin, before the 11-1 deadlock that led to a mistrial, the jury had actually been split differently.

Initially, eight jurors were in favor of finding Clancy not criminally responsible, two were undecided, and the holdout, along with one other juror, was actually leaning toward getting a guilty verdict for Clancy.

Clancy murdered her three children back in 2016 and claimed she was suffering from postpartum psychosis when she committed the crime.

However, an attorney finds Devlin's point of view to be problematic.

According to Neama Rahmani, a Los Angeles-based trial attorney and legal analyst who has been following the case, "Devlin’s statement is problematic."

"Jurors are supposed to decide cases solely based on the facts of that case. In the Clancy case, they were to decide whether she was criminally responsible," Rahmani explained, adding that the jury's role is to apply the law, and not to make the law.

"It is not appropriate for the jurors to consider the impact of their decision on other women, children, or cases," Rahmani told Fox News Digital.

However, he also pointed out that there's not much that can be done.

"Judge Sullivan already declared a mistrial, and the law generally prohibits inquiry into juror deliberations," he said.

Rahmani continued, "There is an exception for outside influences that may prejudice the jury, but that would need an additional inquiry into whether the jurors considered information on traditional or social media or whether this was just Devlin’s interpretation of the importance of the case."