Key facts
- Three jurors in Lindsay Clancy's murder trial spoke publicly about the mistrial.
- The jurors expressed frustration with a holdout juror who prevented a unanimous verdict.
- The holdout juror reportedly acknowledged reasonable doubt but refused to acquit Clancy by reason of insanity.
- Clancy is accused of strangling her three children in January 2023.
- The defense argued Clancy was experiencing a psychotic episode at the time of the killings.
Three jurors from Lindsay Clancy's murder trial have spoken out about the mistrial, blaming a single holdout juror for preventing a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. The foreperson, Roni Carlson, stated that the juror admitted to having reasonable doubt but ultimately refused to acquit Clancy, who is accused of strangling her three young children in January 2023. Another juror, Paula Devlin, described the holdout as 'very arrogant.' Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on Friday after the jury could not reach a unanimous decision. During the six-week trial, the defense argued that Clancy was suffering from a psychotic episode and lacked criminal responsibility when she killed her children. Prosecutors have not yet indicated if they plan to retry the case. If convicted of first-degree murder, Clancy faces a life sentence without parole; an insanity verdict would lead to commitment in a state psychiatric hospital.