Gayle King Reacts After Learning Lone Holdout in Lindsay Clancy Trial Was Jury’s Only Black Member

A juror’s new account of the 11–1 deadlock that ended Lindsay Clancy’s triple-murder trial has renewed attention on the case, while questions remain about what prosecutors will do next.

NEW YORK, Sept. 14, 2026 — CBS News anchor Gayle King reacted with surprise after learning that the lone holdout in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial was the jury’s only Black member.

Juror Paula Devlin disclosed the information during a Friday interview on “CBS Mornings,” where she discussed the deliberations that resulted in an 11–1 deadlock and ultimately a mistrial.

King asked Devlin whether the jury’s only person of color was a man or woman before specifically asking whether that individual was also the juror who refused to acquit Clancy.

Devlin confirmed that the holdout was a Black man, estimated to be in his 30s, prompting King to pause and say she needed a moment to process the information.

The disclosure quickly attracted attention because the 12-member jury consisted of nine women and three men, with Devlin saying the other 11 members of the panel were white.

 

 

The demographic detail, however, does not establish why the holdout reached his decision, and the juror himself has not publicly provided his own account of the closed-door deliberations.

Clancy, a 36-year-old former labor-and-delivery nurse, was charged with murdering her three children at the family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts, home on January 24, 2023.

The children were Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months. Clancy did not dispute killing them, making her criminal responsibility the central question presented to jurors.

Her defense argued that she was experiencing postpartum psychosis and could not be held criminally responsible, while prosecutors maintained she understood her actions and deliberately planned the killings.

After weeks of testimony, jurors began deliberating but repeatedly informed Superior Court Judge William Sullivan that they were unable to reach the unanimous decision required for a verdict.

Devlin told King the panel initially stood at eight favoring a finding of not criminally responsible, two favoring guilt and another two who had not yet decided.

As deliberations continued, the division eventually narrowed to 11–1, with the lone holdout continuing to favor a murder conviction while the remaining jurors supported finding Clancy not criminally responsible.

 

 

 

Devlin said the holdout struggled with how Clancy could carry out multiple deliberate-looking actions surrounding her suicide attempt while simultaneously being considered unable to understand her actions because of psychosis.

According to Devlin, the juror questioned how Clancy could complete those steps individually while suffering the mental state described by defense experts during the closely watched Massachusetts trial.

Other jurors have separately discussed tensions inside the deliberation room. Foreperson Ronni Carlson said the holdout acknowledged having reasonable doubt at one point but still declined to support an insanity acquittal.

Carlson ultimately sent Sullivan a note alleging that one juror was failing to follow instructions concerning reasonable doubt, prompting the judge to question jurors individually and explain the relevant law again.

Despite those efforts, the panel reported for a third time that it remained deadlocked. Sullivan subsequently declared a mistrial on September 4 after seven days of deliberations.

The mistrial did not amount to either an acquittal or conviction. Clancy therefore continues to face unresolved criminal charges while prosecutors consider how they intend to proceed with the case.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington has since filed a motion seeking an acquittal, relying partly on post-trial accounts from jurors about the deliberations and the holdout’s interpretation of reasonable doubt.

Devlin told King she did not support simply throwing out the case, despite believing Clancy should have been found not criminally responsible because of her mental condition at the time.

She said the majority viewed a not-criminally-responsible verdict as a route toward both treatment for Clancy and justice for her children rather than an outcome that simply allowed her to walk free.

Under Massachusetts procedures, an insanity acquittal would not necessarily have meant immediate freedom. Clancy could instead have faced commitment to a secure mental-health facility following evaluation by the court.

Prosecutors have not announced whether they will pursue another trial, while a hearing scheduled for September 29 is expected to address the defense motion and potentially clarify the case’s next phase.

For now, the revelation about the holdout has added another layer of public attention to an already emotional case, but his race alone offers no evidence explaining his reasoning or vote.

The unresolved legal question remains far more consequential: whether prosecutors will put Lindsay Clancy on trial again, negotiate a different resolution, or successfully defend the mistrial against her attorneys’ challenge.