Lindsay Clancy's Attorney Reveals Why He Was So 'Upset' at Lone Juror Who Had 'Doubts' About Trial Verdict: 'That’s Not Right'

Lindsay Clancy came one juror away from an acquittal in her murder trial, according to her defense attorney, who said he is "upset" about the outcome.

Kevin Reddington told reporters that 11 of the 12 jurors were prepared to find Clancy not guilty by reason of a lack of criminal responsibility, but that a single holdout prevented a unanimous verdict, resulting in a mistrial.

The trial ended on Friday, September 4, when the jury reported it was deadlocked after roughly a week of deliberations. In response, Reddington told George Stephanopoulos on the Tuesday, September 8, episode of Good Morning America exactly what made him so upset about said trial.

Reddington was pointed in his account of what happened inside the jury room. He said the panel of nine women and three men had all but reached a verdict, with one man refusing to join the others.

According to Reddington, the foreperson relayed that the holdout acknowledged having doubts, but wouldn't vote to acquit.

"What I was upset about was after that lengthy trial and the work that everyone put into this case including these jurors that spent literally almost two months away from their home, their job, their family where a gentleman had an opinion, but that according to the note from the forelady that he had doubt but he would not apply the law of reasonable doubt as presented by the judge,” Reddington told Stephanopoulos.

“That’s not right and that’s why I was upset.”

The attorney didn't make any attempts to hide his frustration. He told reporters the other jurors had been robbed by a single member who, for reasons the defense could not explain, wouldn't move.

However, he praised the rest of the panel as attentive and thanked them, saying he believed they would have continued deliberating longer if given the chance.

The dispute over the juror had played out in court before the mistrial. During deliberations, Reddington asked Judge William Sullivan to remove the holdout, arguing the juror was refusing to apply the law on reasonable doubt.

He described the situation as one in which an individual had taken an intractable position regardless of the evidence.

Sullivan declined to dismiss the juror. Instead, the judge reread the panel its instructions on how to weigh reasonable doubt and directed jurors to keep deliberating.

Reddington criticized that approach as "too soft," prompting a bit of a tense exchange with the judge, who insisted he was not glossing over the issue and had weighed it carefully.

Analysts who followed the case cautioned that dismissing a holdout isn't exactly easy to pull off. Former prosecutors noted that while a juror can be removed for refusing to follow the law, courts don't want to accidentally remove someone just for disagreeing with the majority.

The distinction between the two, according to experts, is between a juror who rejects the law outright and one who understands it but weighs the facts differently, the latter being well within a juror's rights.

That line is difficult to establish, which is part of why judges usually aren't willing to eject jurors in the middle of a trial.

Clancy was charged with the January 2023 deaths of her three young children at the family's home in Duxbury, Mass.

Her defense argued she was in the grip of postpartum psychosis and could not be held criminally responsible, while prosecutors contended the killings were deliberate. That question, rather than whether she caused the deaths, was the heart of the trial.

After the mistrial, Reddington's request to survey the jury about lesser charges was denied, and the defense's emergency appeal to the state's highest court was rejected.

Clancy has since been returned to the state mental health facility, where she's held throughout the trial.

Plymouth District Attorney Tim Cruz has said prosecutors will decide soon whether to retry the case, with a hearing on next steps set for September 29.