Three Lindsey Clancy jurors describe frustration with holdout who acknowledged reasonable doubt but refused not-guilty verdict
Three jurors from the Lindsey Clancy trial spoke publicly for the first time after Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial, describing their experience during seven days of deliberations. The jury deadlocked 11-1 after one male juror was unwilling to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity. Clancy had admitted to killing her three children in 2023 but pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
Jury foreperson Roni Carlson, speaking alongside two other female jurors in an interview with NBC10 Boston, described a pivotal and ultimately frustrating exchange with the holdout juror. Carlson said the holdout acknowledged having "reasonable doubt" and she began filling out the verdict forms — writing her signature on each — before he clarified he still would not vote not guilty by reason of insanity.
"There were three forms I had to fill out, and I started filling them out. I wrote my signature on each one, and then he said, 'But I'm still not going to say that she's not guilty by reason of insanity,'" Carlson told NBC10, according to the Washington Examiner.
Juror Kellie Farina described the holdout as largely unwilling to engage with the rest of the panel. She said the group repeatedly walked him through Judge Sullivan's written instructions on the legal definition of reasonable doubt, but that he struggled to separate the act of killing from the question of legal responsibility. "He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children," Farina said, according to the Washington Examiner. Farina also noted that while other jurors would get up and move around out of frustration during the lengthy sessions, the holdout rarely left his seat or interacted with other jurors.