Jurors are starting to speak out after the deadlocked Lindsay Clancy murder trial, detailing the arguments they had with a holdout male juror who did not acquit, according to a report Tuesday.
The remarks from members of the jury come as Patrick Clancy’s attorney threatened legal action against a “destructive defamation campaign,” against his client.
Three unnamed women of the 12-member jury spoke to NBC10 Boston in a segment set to air in full Tuesday night about what deliberations were like in the blockbuster trial.
The jury’s foreperson, a woman, said that the man admitted to having reasonable doubt, but refused to find the Duxbury mother not guilty. There were three male jurors.
“I started filling out the forms; I was so excited,” the foreperson told NBC10 Boston. “There were three forms I had to fill out, and then he said, ‘But I’m still not going to say she’s not guilty.’”
Another woman, referred to as “juror two,” added that the man allegedly retrieved exhibits from a cart only once during the deliberations that lasted roughly 38 hours over seven days.
“He would not interact with us and try to understand,” the woman said. “We read to him the definition of reasonable doubt. … He said one day, ‘Why don’t we have the judge read it again?’ and we were like, ‘No, we have it in front of us.’”
This all comes after Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial at Plymouth Superior Court last Friday.
The Duxbury mom had been on trial since the end of July, accused of murdering her three children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, in January 2023.
Clancy doesn’t dispute that she killed the kids. Rather, her defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, has argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and wasn’t criminally responsible for the deaths.
After strangling the children, Clancy tried to kill herself by jumping out a window, leaving her paralyzed.
In a note to Sullivan before the judge declared a mistrial, the jury wrote, “It is with a heavy heart that we report that we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to.”
That came after two other notes earlier last week, with the jury reporting an impasse. In a separate letter, on Thursday, the foreperson stated that one juror was not following the law.
Reddington contested the deadlock just as Sullivan was about to bring in the jury to declare a mistrial. The defense attorney asked the state Supreme Judicial Court to question the one holdout juror, who he identified as a man, about his ability to apply the law.
In a motion that appellate attorney Dana Goldblatt filed on Reddington’s behalf, the defense accused the male juror of a “bias against those who suffer from debilitating mental illness, a protected category.”
The SJC denied the request later Friday afternoon, with Sullivan then informing the jury that he’d declare a mistrial.
Speaking about the juror on Good Morning America on Tuesday, Reddington said he respects the judicial system and that he’d “certainly defend his right” not to agree with a verdict. The defense attorney expressed frustration with what the holdout meant.
“According to the note from the forelady … he had doubt, but he would not apply the law of reasonable doubt as presented by the judge,” Reddington said. “That’s not right, and that’s why I was upset.”
Responding to a question about Patrick Clancy during the national TV segment, Reddington said he represents Lindsay Clancy and that his obligation is to the mother. But he noted that the wife, husband and three kids, “as a family, they were very, very, very happy.”
That dramatically changed as Lindsay started to receive medication to treat her postpartum depression, Reddington said, in the fall of 2022 after a “very happy” summer. He slammed his client’s medical providers for failing the mother.
“This girl’s life was ruined,” the defense attorney said.
Reddington unleashed on the juror as he spoke to reporters outside the courthouse Friday afternoon.
“They know they were robbed by one man,” he said, “for whatever his agenda was, who stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurors that were so attentive, so beautiful, so wonderful.”
Also Tuesday, Patrick Clancy’s attorney, Howard Cooper, vowed that people who are spreading “blatant and baseless falsehoods” about his client’s involvement in the deaths of his three children will face consequences.
Cooper wrote in a statement, “Every appropriate measure will be pursued to hold them accountable, including legally. Law enforcement has been notified.”
Cooper’s pledge follows a statement that Patrick Clancy issued through another attorney, David Meier, after the mistrial was declared last week, saying the ex-husband will “never recover” from his children’s deaths and that the prospect of a retrial is “extraordinarily painful.”
Cooper described the defamation campaign as being carried out by “minor celebrities, so-called influencers and outright conspiracy theorists who appear intent on boosting their own social media profiles and potential profit by publishing what they know to be outright falsehoods that Patrick was somehow involved in the death of his young children and other vile claims.”
“This campaign, now fueled by insatiable media coverage, remains at a fever pitch and has resulted in real life threats to his reputation, livelihood, and life,” Cooper wrote. “Patrick has no choice but to address this situation – with the clear goal of stopping injurious behavior, creating accountability for lies that are self-serving to the perpetrators, and being able to return his attention to what matters: preserving the memory of Cora, Dawson and Callan Clancy and supporting other women facing perinatal mental health challenges.”