New Details About Lone Holdout Juror Raise Questions After Lindsay Clancy Mistrial

Court records, interviews and accounts from fellow jurors are bringing new scrutiny to the lone holdout whose vote prevented a unanimous verdict in Lindsay Clancy’s closely watched triple-murder trial.

BOSTON, Sept. 14, 2026 — New information about the lone holdout juror in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial is drawing attention days after an 11–1 deadlock resulted in a mistrial.

NBC10 Boston reported that court documents and interviews with relatives revealed domestic-violence allegations involving the juror, along with an active restraining order while he was serving on the jury.

The reporting does not establish that the juror committed domestic violence, and allegations contained in court records should not be treated as criminal findings without an adjudication establishing responsibility.

Still, the information has prompted questions about jury selection in one of Massachusetts’ highest-profile criminal cases and whether those circumstances should have emerged during the process.

The latest revelations follow seven days of jury deliberations over whether Clancy was criminally responsible when she killed her three young children at the family’s Duxbury home in January 2023.

Clancy acknowledged strangling Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months. The central dispute was whether her mental condition prevented her from being legally responsible for their deaths.

Her attorneys argued Clancy was experiencing postpartum psychosis and should be found not guilty by reason of insanity, while prosecutors maintained that she understood her actions and planned the killings.

The jury ultimately divided 11–1, with eleven jurors favoring a finding that Clancy was not criminally responsible and one juror supporting a murder conviction, according to multiple jurors interviewed afterward.

Several jurors have since provided extraordinary accounts of what happened inside the deliberation room, including allegations that the holdout acknowledged reasonable doubt but remained unwilling to change his position.

Foreperson Roni Carlson told NBC10 Boston that the holdout had acknowledged reasonable doubt while nevertheless refusing to conclude that Clancy should be found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington raised similar concerns before the mistrial, arguing in court that the juror was refusing to follow the judge’s instructions concerning the legal standard for reasonable doubt.

Superior Court Judge William Sullivan responded by individually questioning jurors under oath, explaining reasonable doubt again and sending the panel back to continue deliberations rather than removing the holdout.

Another juror, Nick Dargie, subsequently told ABC News that the holdout did not present a “single piece of evidence” that persuaded fellow jurors to understand the reasoning behind his position.

Juror Paula Devlin has offered additional details, saying the holdout became particularly focused on the amount of blood discovered where Clancy attempted suicide after killing her children.

Devlin said the juror questioned whether there was too much blood for Clancy’s wounds, despite testimony from experts concerning blood spatter and the physical evidence found inside the home.

According to Devlin, other jurors asked the holdout to explain that concern further, but she said he did not provide an explanation that persuaded the rest of the panel.

Devlin also told CBS News that the jury began deliberations less dramatically divided: eight favored finding Clancy not responsible, two supported murder convictions and two remained undecided.

She said forensic psychiatrist Dr. Phillip Resnick’s testimony about “altruistic filicide,” along with testimony from Clancy’s former husband Patrick, played significant roles in convincing her Clancy was not criminally responsible.

Patrick Clancy’s testimony was particularly influential, Devlin said, because despite losing his three children, he resisted attempts she perceived as invitations to say something negative about his former wife.

Not every juror has characterized the holdout as simply unreasonable. Another juror interviewed by CBS Boston defended aspects of his conduct and described strong personalities and firmly held convictions throughout the deliberation room.

That juror said the majority had been attempting to persuade the holdout from early in deliberations and cautioned that multiple jurors, not only the holdout, remained strongly committed to their positions.

After nearly 40 hours of deliberations failed to produce unanimity, Sullivan declared a mistrial September 4, leaving Clancy’s criminal case unresolved rather than producing either a conviction or acquittal.

The dispute has now moved beyond the jury room. Reddington has asked Sullivan to acquit Clancy rather than permit prosecutors to put her through a second murder trial.

Reddington argues prosecutors presented insufficient evidence to establish criminal responsibility and has cited information emerging from jurors after the mistrial as part of his effort to prevent another trial.

The Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office has not yet announced whether prosecutors will retry Clancy, pursue lesser charges, negotiate a resolution or ultimately decline another prosecution.

Devlin, despite voting to find Clancy not criminally responsible, told CBS she does not favor simply dismissing the case because she believes an appropriate resolution should also provide justice for the children.

A hearing scheduled for September 29 could clarify what happens next, including the defense request for an acquittal and whether prosecutors intend to pursue another trial.

The new information about the holdout adds another controversial element, but it does not invalidate his vote automatically or establish that allegations from his personal life affected his deliberations.

The central legal question therefore remains unresolved: whether Clancy will face another jury after eleven jurors favored finding her not criminally responsible and one juror prevented a unanimous verdict.