We were 11–1 💔 A male juror from Lindsay Clancy’s trial has now revealed how deeply divided the jury became during deliberations
We were 11–1 💔 A male juror from Lindsay Clancy’s trial has now revealed how deeply divided the jury became during deliberations. The final split was 11–1, with a single juror maintaining he had reasonable doubt while the other 11 reached the opposite conclusion.
The disagreement became so intense that the jury could not reach the unanimous decision required, ending the trial in a mistrial.
But the juror’s account of what happened inside that room — and what the lone holdout kept pointing to — adds a striking new layer to the case…
Full details in the comments 👇
**We were 11–1: Male juror reveals how deeply divided the Lindsay Clancy jury became during contentious deliberations**
A male juror who sat through the high-profile Lindsay Clancy murder trial has publicly described the intense and ultimately irreconcilable split that produced a mistrial. According to detailed accounts from multiple members of the panel, the final division inside the jury room was 11–1. Eleven jurors had reached the conclusion that Clancy was not criminally responsible for the deaths of her three young children. One juror refused to join them, creating a deadlock that the panel could not break despite days of argument, repeated reviews of evidence, and multiple notes sent to the judge.
The disagreement grew so entrenched over seven days of deliberations that the jury could not deliver the unanimous verdict required by law. On September 4, 2026, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial in Plymouth, Massachusetts. A status hearing to determine the next steps in the case is scheduled for September 29. In the meantime, the accounts now emerging from jurors offer the clearest public window yet into what happened behind the closed doors of the jury room and why a single holdout prevented a resolution in one of the most closely watched criminal cases in recent Massachusetts history.
The 11–1 split and the weight of a single vote
Lindsay Clancy, 36, of Duxbury, faced charges stemming from the January 2023 deaths of her three children: Cora, age 5; Dawson, age 3; and Callan, who was only 8 months old. She has never denied that she caused their deaths by strangling them with exercise bands in the basement of the family home. After the killings she cut her wrists and jumped from a second-story window, suffering injuries that left her partially paralyzed. The central question for the jury was not whether she committed the acts, but whether she was criminally responsible for them at the time.
Her defense team argued that she was suffering from a severe episode of postpartum psychosis and should be found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. Prosecutors maintained that she understood the nature and wrongfulness of her actions and should be held fully accountable. The jury of nine women and three men was tasked with choosing among first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, not guilty, or not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.
Deliberations lasted approximately 38 hours spread across seven days. Notes sent to the judge made clear that the panel was deeply divided. Later interviews with jurors confirmed the precise split: eleven members favored a finding that Clancy lacked criminal responsibility. One male juror would not agree. That single dissenting vote was enough to prevent a verdict under the requirement of unanimity.
Nick Dargie, 25, one of the three male jurors on the panel, has now spoken about the atmosphere inside the room. In an exclusive interview with ABC’s Aaron Katersky, reported by WCVB and other outlets, Dargie said he repeatedly pressed the holdout to identify specific pieces of evidence or passages of witness testimony that supported his position. “There was several times I would ask him to show us, like, evidence, or, you know, describe a witness testimony that helped to prove what he was saying, and he couldn’t,” Dargie said. “There wasn’t a single piece of evidence or witness testimony that he used to prove why he was thinking the way he was, which was why we ultimately sent in that note. Otherwise, there’s nothing wrong with somebody having a completely opposite opinion. That would be a hung jury; that is our justice system.”
Dargie, who was serving in the military in Korea when the children were killed and who said he knew nothing about the case before jury selection, emphasized an important distinction. A genuine, good-faith disagreement rooted in different interpretations of the evidence is a legitimate feature of the jury system and can properly result in a hung jury. What frustrated him and, according to other jurors, the rest of the majority, was the perception that the holdout offered no such evidence-based foundation for his refusal to join the emerging consensus.
### Voices from the majority: frustration, near-breakthrough, and deadlock
Three female jurors, including the foreperson, Roni Carlson, gave a lengthy and detailed interview to NBC10 Boston in the days after the mistrial. Their account aligns closely with Dargie’s description of the core dynamic while adding further texture to the emotional and procedural strain inside the room.
Carlson, a retired teacher, described a moment that briefly seemed to signal the end of the deadlock. “He admitted he had reasonable doubt and I started filling out the forms, I was so excited,” she recalled. There were three separate verdict forms to complete. She began writing and even signed each one. Then the holdout added a critical qualification: he still would not vote that Clancy was not guilty by reason of insanity. The forms were set aside. The impasse continued.
Other jurors painted a consistent picture of a holdout who, in their view, remained closed off from the collective examination of the evidence. One juror, Paula Devlin, who works for a government defense contractor, described him as “arrogant” and said he “completely disregarded” information provided by nurses who were also on the jury when they tried to explain medical and toxicology reports concerning Clancy’s medications. Another juror, Kellie Farina, a chef, said the holdout “had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.” In her view, he struggled to separate the undisputed fact of the killings from the legal question the jury was actually required to answer: whether Clancy’s mental state at the time meant she lacked criminal responsibility.
Jurors reported that they read the legal definition of reasonable doubt to the holdout on multiple occasions. At one point he suggested asking the judge to read it again; the others responded that the instruction was already in front of them. The panel sent several notes to the court reporting that they were unable to reach a unanimous decision. In one particularly significant note, the foreperson informed Judge Sullivan that a single juror had expressed reasonable doubt yet was not following the court’s instructions on how that doubt should be applied. Defense attorneys requested that the holdout be removed and replaced with an alternate. The request was denied. After further deliberation produced no movement, the mistrial was declared.
### The legal standard the jury was required to apply
Under Massachusetts law, the prosecution must prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt. If jurors conclude that the defendant, because of a mental disease or defect, lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law, they are required to find her not criminally responsible. Several of the jurors who have spoken indicated that the majority believed the evidence of Clancy’s severe mental illness, her documented efforts to seek psychiatric help in the months before the killings, and the absence of any conventional motive supported that conclusion.
The holdout, according to these accounts, at times appeared to acknowledge the existence of reasonable doubt yet still refused to vote for the corresponding verdict. Whether that characterization fully and fairly captures the holdout’s internal reasoning cannot be known with certainty, because that juror has not spoken publicly and his identity has not been confirmed. The accounts available so far therefore represent the perspective of the eleven who favored acquittal on the grounds of lack of criminal responsibility.
### Background of a case that gripped the public
The events of January 24, 2023, remain at the center of the legal and public conversation. Clancy strangled her three children in the basement of the family’s home in Duxbury. She then attempted to take her own life by cutting her wrists and jumping from a second-story window. She survived with serious injuries that left her partially paralyzed and has been held at Tewksbury State Hospital, a state psychiatric facility.
The criminal trial began in mid-July 2026 and lasted approximately five weeks. Although the defense was prepared to stipulate to the fact of the children’s deaths, Clancy pleaded not guilty. The proceedings drew intense media coverage and public attention because they sat at the difficult intersection of severe postpartum mental illness, the deaths of three young children, and the legal threshold for criminal responsibility. Clancy has also filed a civil lawsuit against medical providers, alleging a catastrophic failure to properly diagnose and treat her psychiatric condition in the period leading up to the tragedy.
Throughout the trial, the defense presented evidence intended to show that Clancy was a loving mother who had been overwhelmed by a psychotic break. Prosecutors argued that the evidence demonstrated she retained sufficient awareness and control to be held criminally responsible. The jury’s inability to resolve that fundamental dispute produced the mistrial.
### What comes next
The mistrial leaves the criminal case unresolved. Clancy remains at Tewksbury State Hospital under the same pretrial conditions that applied before and during the trial. Prosecutors must now decide whether to retry the case before a new jury, explore a different resolution, or pursue another course. Defense attorneys have indicated they may seek a directed finding of not guilty on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient. A hearing on September 29 is expected to clarify the procedural path forward.
For the jurors who have chosen to speak, the experience left a lasting mark. Several described the emotional weight of listening to the evidence, including the 911 call made by Clancy’s husband, Patrick, after he discovered the children. One juror said she would “never be the same” after hearing that call. Others expressed sadness that the panel could not deliver a verdict they believed the evidence supported. At the same time, they recognized that the justice system requires unanimity and that a single juror’s refusal, even if frustrating to the majority, is part of that system when it is grounded in a genuine assessment of the evidence.
### Why these accounts matter
High-profile trials involving the deaths of children and complex questions of mental illness often leave the public with only the formal outcome or the absence of one. The decision by multiple jurors, including Dargie and the three women who spoke to NBC10 Boston, to discuss the deliberations provides a rare and detailed look at how the evidence was actually weighed, debated, and ultimately left unresolved.
Their accounts describe a panel that, by a wide majority, found the defense’s presentation of postpartum psychosis and lack of criminal responsibility persuasive. They also describe a single juror who remained unconvinced and, in the majority’s view, unable or unwilling to articulate a specific, evidence-based reason for that position. That characterization may be incomplete or contested if the holdout eventually chooses to speak. Until then, the public record consists of an 11–1 deadlock, a mistrial, and a case that continues to await final resolution.
Seven days of deliberation, repeated examinations of medical records and witness testimony, and multiple appeals to the legal standard of reasonable doubt were not enough to produce unanimity. Eleven jurors believed the evidence required a finding that Lindsay Clancy lacked criminal responsibility. One did not. The result was a mistrial that returns the case to the starting point, with the families of the three children, Clancy herself, and the broader public still waiting for a conclusive legal determination that the first jury could not deliver.
