When Lindsay Clancy’s trial ended in a mistrial last week, it seemed an unthinkable outcome for such a long and high-profile proceeding. The fact that the jury was tied 11-1 only added to the alarm.
But when the emotions subsided, they were replaced by questions. Specifically: What happened in the Plymouth County jury room? And what will happen next?
Behind closed doors, the biggies butted heads, cried and, we now learned, even struck up friendships as a jury debated the case of a former obstetrics nurse who strangled her three young children to death.
Over the course of nearly 40 hours on January 24, 2023, a majority of jurors began to agree that they had reasonable doubt that Clancy knew truth from lies. But one of the dissenters simply refused to budge.
Now four jurors have emerged – three named, one wishing to remain anonymous – to share their experiences of deliberations that were at times heated and, for the 11 people convinced Clancy should be acquitted, frustrating.
Of course, the Daily Mail – which was in court throughout the trial and witnessed every time the jury returned to ask a question or declare that they were “hopelessly deadlocked” – noticed the rising emotion visible on some faces.
Few would envy jurors for their work. Now that there was a mistrial, there was the prospect of retrying the case and choosing a different jury. And who said that 12 more men and women could reach a consensus?
The Daily Mail spoke to several legal experts who have been following the unusual case to see what can be learned from what the jurors revealed, insight into next steps and, as one revealed, a new way in which justice could ultimately be served.
When Lindsay Clancy’s trial ended in a mistrial last week, it seemed an unthinkable outcome for such a long and high-profile proceeding.
Clancy does not deny killing five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson and eight-month-old Callan, but has advanced the insanity defense.
Former prosecutor and barrister Margaret McLean told the Daily Mail that revelations from four jurors showed a “heated” deliberation room.
“If it got down to 11 people voting not guilty by reason of insanity and then there was one objector, I can imagine how frustrating that would be,” McLean said. “This opponent might think they are being bullied, so I’m sure things are tough there.”
In his experience, McLean says, “emotions can run high” as jurors tirelessly try to defend their position.
“It takes significant willpower to stand up to 11 others for more than a week, and many more would have given up,” Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, told the Daily Mail.
Despite the conflict with the dissenting juror, the anonymous juror who spoke to CBS said she felt like she still had to “defend this man” because he wasn’t the only one who “wasn’t willing to see things from the other side.”
“There were some great people in that room, but at the end of the day, I think it came down to an inability to look beyond one’s beliefs,” she said.
For many jurors, the stress showed up before they even began deliberations. During those five-and-a-half weeks, the Daily Mail witnessed several instances where jurors struggled to hide their feelings.
One woman, who has since spoken out and identified herself as Kelly Farina, was unable to hide her emotions during the trial and broke down in tears while listening to the devastating 911 call that showed the moment Clancy’s then-husband Patrick found the bodies of their children.
After 18 hours of deliberation, the jury sent a note to the court saying they were unable to reach a unanimous decision. The judge sent them back to continue.
The Daily Mail watched as Farina shuddered and closed her eyes before lowering her head – an instinctive reaction to the prospect that they would have to continue. Several other jurors shook their heads.
By this point, 11 jurors had reached a unanimous decision, finding Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity.
Stress and strain were visible on some jurors’ faces, with many appearing despondent and physically exhausted.
Some jurors broke down as they listened to the devastating 911 call that showed the moment Clancy’s then-husband Patrick found the bodies of their children.
Eleven jurors unanimously found Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity.
When they returned the next day with another note for the judge saying they had reached a dead end, some looked even more tired, their usually neat hair somewhat disheveled.
Later, when they were called individually to the dock on the sidebar and asked if they could comply with the law, many of them smiled and nodded as Judge William Sullivan spoke.
Hours later, when the judge declared a mistrial, Farina and another as-yet-anonymous female juror began to cry.
It’s unclear whether District Attorney Tim Cruz plans to re-examine the case, although according to criminal defense lawyer and former New York City prosecutor Mark Bederow, given what the jury shared, he would benefit from reconsidering bringing prosecutors Jennifer Sprague and Shanann Buckingham back on the case.
“Some of these jurors were very critical of the prosecutors and the way they handled the case,” Bederow told the Daily Mail.
Jurors spoke disparagingly of prosecutors, disputing their lack of compassion for Clancy and calling their case “very harsh” and “biased.” They said that at times the prosecutors’ behavior even bordered on “unprofessional.”
“If you’re a juror and you see prosecutors acting like chameleons from the beginning to the end of a trial, you’ll question the credibility of everything they say and whether they even believe what they’re saying.”
Clancy does not deny she killed five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson and eight-month-old Callan, but raises an insanity defense, claiming she suffered from postpartum psychosis.
In Massachusetts, when a defendant pleads not guilty by reason of insanity, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant could have followed the law at the time of the alleged crime.
Jury Foreman Roni Carlson said the dissenting juror admitted he had “reasonable doubt” but still couldn’t bring himself to acquit Clancy. Fellow juror Paula Devlin said he “just completely ignored” the law as directed by the judge.
But a fourth, anonymous juror admitted that she herself was initially inclined to convict but ultimately felt there was “so much doubt.”
“The prosecution did not have, figuratively speaking, a smoking gun in its hands. Throughout the entire presentation of this case, there was not one moment where you could say, “Oh yeah, I’m 100 percent sure she did it or that she didn’t do it.” There was too much gray area,” she said.
For her part, McLean praised defense attorney Kevin Reddington’s ability to secure the “right” jury sympathetic to Clancy’s case. If the prosecution reopens the case, the defense will have nothing to change, McLean said. Jurors spoke of Reddington in glowing terms, believing he offered much-needed relief in a tragic case like Clancy’s and served as a compassionate foil to cold prosecutors.
“Reddington hit a home run,” McLean said. “The jury liked his style. He should choose the same type of jury if he can. “I’m sure he’ll button up some things, but Reddington was so persuasive with these 11 jurors.”
McLean said the defense also successfully convinced the jury that Clancy was a “loving mother” who “never did anything wrong in her life.”
Throughout deliberations, Carlson said, the jury kept returning to evidence of Clancy’s character.
“From her journals to her mother-in-law, everything showed that she loved her children,” Carlson said. “So she must have lost it and didn’t know what she was doing. To me that was proof that she didn’t know what she was doing.”
Bederow said that before prosecutors decide whether to retry the case, prosecutors must acknowledge the fact that the jury “completely rejected their case” and that Clancy’s family does not want a new trial.
“It would be almost unheard of and almost unprecedented for a prosecutor to retry a case when the jury overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, agreed that your first attempt resulted in a complete failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the mental state of a woman who indisputably killed her children,” Bederow said.
The jurors included Foreman Roni Carlson, Kelly Farina and Paula Devlin.
McLean said defense attorney Kevin Reddington successfully convinced jurors that Clancy was a “loving mother.”
Clancy’s family doesn’t want a new trial
There’s also a chance prosecutors could negotiate a plea deal that would keep Clancy in the hospital, but doing so would be politically difficult because it would serve as an “admission” that the first trial was a waste of time and money, Bederow said.
Reddington said he was willing to make a deal that would be “acceptable to both sides,” but Rahmani said the “parties are too far apart.”
“There is significant political pressure on Cruz to re-examine the case and put Clancy in prison for life, especially when there are three dead children,” he said. “If he offers any meaningful discount, he will be perceived by many as soft on crime and he will be voted out of office.”
But McLean told the Daily Mail there is another route that would eliminate the problem of finding an impartial juror.
If prosecutors drop the first-degree murder charge and instead push for second-degree murder or manslaughter, then Reddington could ask for a trial in which the case would be decided by a judge rather than a jury.
In this case, McLean is quite clear: “My feeling is that the judge would indeed have ruled not guilty by reason of insanity.
“But here’s the thing: You’re not going to have another mistrial. You’re not going to have 12 jurors split, so I think that’s something to consider.”