TRUE CRIME NEWS'He Was Very Arrogant,' Jurors Say of Lone Holdout in Lindsay Clancy Mistrial Who Blocked Verdict
Lindsay Clancy murder trial jurors called the lone holdout juror 'very arrogant.'
Sept. 9 2026, Updated 10:11 a.m. ET
The lone holdout in Lindsay Clancy's murder trial is being deemed overbearing by jurors.
The jury foreperson and two other jurors told NBC10 Boston on Tuesday, “He was very arrogant.”
“He just completely disregarded the information that [nurses on the jury] gave,” continued juror Paula Devlin, referencing opinions on the concentration of antidepressants and antipsychotics in Clancy's blood at the time of the murders.
The Juror Panel Was Reportedly Split 11-1 in Favor of Clancy
The Lindsay Clancy trial jurors said that the panel was split 11-1 in favor of Clancy.
Apparently, the panel was split 11-1 in favor of finding Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity in the 2023 murders of her three young children.
“He admitted he had reasonable doubt,” Roni Carlson, the jury foreperson, recalled. “I started filling out the forms. I was so excited… And then he said, ‘But I’m still not gonna say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.'”
The jurors said that the lone holdout 'completely disregarded the information' that the nurses on the jury gave.
Kellie Farina, the third juror, further offered, “I’m not sure if rogue is the right word, but every one of us, in the hours of our frustration, would get up and walk the room, because you just couldn’t sit anymore, and we’d all go to the cart with the exhibits.”
“He, I think, got up to the cart once, very briefly, and went back to his seat. He would not interact with us or try to understand,” she continued.
- Lindsay Clancy Looks 'Scared' and 'Nervous' as Jury Deliberations Resume in Triple Murder Trial, Her Lawyer Claims: Photo
- Lindsay Clancy Jury Deadlocked After 18 Hours Over Whether She Was Criminally Responsible for Killing Her Children, Deliberations to Continue
- Juror in Lindsay Clancy Trial 'Burst Into Tears' During Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague's Closing Argument as She Recounted Children's Deaths
Want OK! each day? Sign up here!
Juror Kellie Farina even read Judge William Sullivan’s definition of reasonable doubt to the lone holdout juror.
Farina also recalled reading to the juror in question Judge William Sullivan’s definition of reasonable doubt, which he recited in the courtroom during an impassioned speech just a day before the gruelling, weeks-long trial ended in a mistrial.
“He actually said one day in the end, ‘Well, why don’t we have the judge come in and read it again,’ and we were like, ‘No! We have it in front of us. We don’t need that.’ And we would highlight it… But he had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children,” she added.
Lindsay Clancy Case Jurors Felt the Trial 'Proved' She Loved Her Kids
The three jurors claimed that evidence and witnesses in the trial proved that Lindsay Clancy loved her kids.
Additionally, the three jurors, including the foreperson, also explained that evidence and witnesses throughout the grueling seven-week trial “proved” that Clancy loved her three children.
“There wasn’t one person on either side that could say anything bad about her. Even the prosecution really couldn’t point to anything,” Devlin said.
For those unversed, Clancy was on trial for strangling her three children, i.e., Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8-months, at her Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in January 2024.
