Lindsay Clancy jurors fuming at 'arrogant' holdout as deliberations spiralled into arguments and name-calling

Lindsay Clancy jurors fuming at 'arrogant' holdout as deliberations spiralled into arguments and name-calling A juror on the Lindsay Clancy trial claimed the holdout, that saw the case turn to a mistrial, 'admitted he had reasonable doubt' but would not agree to a not guilty verdict Several jurors in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial that gripped the US have broken their silence on the "arrogant" holdout juror who blocked the mum's acquittal. Clancy, 36, had been charged with murder after the 2023 deaths of her children: Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months. The former labour and delivery nurse, didn't deny strangling her children, but said postpartum psychosis led to her actions. After seven days of deliberation, the trial was declared a mistrial after the jury did not reach a unanimous verdict. Following the controversial trial, where the judge was told a juror allegedly refused to follow the court's instructions on reasonable doubt, three jurors shared their account. The seven-week trial came to a close on Friday and the mistral left the case unresolved, allowing prosecutors to potentially try Clancy again. Speaking in an exclusive interview with NBC10 Boston, the three jurors said the atmosphere in the deliberation room was tense and at times broke out into "name-calling and yelling". One of the Jurors, Paula Devlin, said: "He was very arrogant, he really did not take anything that anybody said. The jury, at the Massachusetts trial, was made up of nine women and three men. The jury's foreperson claimed the holdout at one point admitted he had reasonable doubt but did not vote to acquit Clancy due to insanity. A foreperson, in a US trial, acts as a spokesperson for the jury and delivers the verdict to the judge. The panel was split 11-to-1 in favour of finding Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, according to the jurors. Foreperson Roni Carlson said: "He had reasonable doubt, he admitted he had reasonable doubt after we watched that video of the interview, I think that's what it was. He admitted he had reasonable doubt, I started filling out the forms I was so excited and then he said, 'but I'm still not going to say that she's not guilty by reason of insanity'." Carlson added: "I was so sad, so sad that we couldn't come up with a verdict for Lindsay. It was so heartbreaking." Another juror, Kellie Farina, said most of them at times became frustrated and said: "Everyone of us in the hours of our frustration would get up and walk the room because you just couldn't sit anymore. And we would 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." She added: "He would not interact with us and try to understand." The three women told NBC10 that at times the deliberations became so heated that six alternate jurors, who were held in a separate room, could hear the shouting and thought the panel was fighting. The holdout juror has not spoken out publicly. In January 2023, Clancy strangled her three children to death at the family's home in coastal Duxbury, Massachusetts. The father of the children, Patrick Clancy, discovered the dead children in the basement when he came home from running errands. Clancy jumped from a window immediately after and remains paralysed from the waist down. Prosecutors conceded that Clancy had severe mental illness, but insisted she was able to understand and control her actions. The mum's lawyer, Kevin Reddington, never disputed she killed the kids, but said she should not be held criminally responsible because she had postpartum psychosis – a rare mental illness linked to the stress, sleep deprivation and hormonal changes that follow childbirth. After the mistrial was declared, Clancy went back to her pre-trial conditions at Tewksbury Hospital, a state-run psychiatric and medical facility in Massachusetts.