Nick Dargie, one of the 12 jurors on Lindsay Clancy's murder trial, has become the latest to speak publicly about what happened during deliberations, following the case's mistrial declaration last week.
Background on the case
Clancy's trial ended in a mistrial after jurors told the judge they couldn't reach a unanimous decision, following nearly 40 hours of deliberation. It later emerged that a single holdout juror, who has not been publicly identified, prevented the 36-year-old from being acquitted of first-degree murder by reason of insanity.
What Dargie said
Dargie, 25, one of three male jurors, told ABC News he repeatedly asked the holdout juror to point to specific evidence or testimony supporting his position, but said he was unable to do so. He said: "There wasn't a single piece of evidence or witness testimony that he used to prove why he was thinking the way he was, which is why we ultimately sent in that note." Dargie was careful to note that disagreement alone wasn't the issue, saying a genuinely differing opinion would simply have resulted in a hung jury, which he described as part of how the justice system is meant to work.
The notes sent to the judge
The jury sent four notes to the judge during deliberations: two stating they were deadlocked, a third raising concerns about the holdout juror and how he was applying reasonable doubt, and a fourth confirming they couldn't reach a verdict despite the extended deliberation.
Where the case stands
Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not yet decided whether to retry Clancy. Speaking after the mistrial was declared, Cruz said: "I appreciate the fact that there are strong feelings and opinions tied to this case. However, our job is to set aside our feelings and focus solely on the facts. The facts are Lindsay Clancy killed her three children and the evidence suggested to us that she was in control of her actions when she committed those homicides."
Other jurors' accounts
Several other jurors have also spoken publicly since the trial ended. Juror Kellie Farina described hearing a 911 call made by Clancy's husband, Patrick, after discovering his injured wife and deceased children, calling it "the most horrific thing" she'd ever heard, adding that jurors cried again when the recording was replayed during deliberations.
Foreperson Roni Carlson, a retired teacher, said all 12 jurors had initially agreed on a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict, including the eventual holdout, who she said told the group he had reasonable doubt before later reversing his position while she was filling out verdict forms. Carlson described the deliberation process as filled with crying and emotional exchanges, and said Clancy's defence team's attempt to have the juror removed for alleged bias was unsuccessful.
Other jurors described the holdout juror as difficult to engage with during deliberations, with one describing him as arrogant and another saying he largely wouldn't interact with the rest of the panel. One juror who works for a government defence contractor said the holdout appeared to disregard toxicology evidence discussed by nurses on the jury regarding medication Clancy had been prescribed. A separate anonymous juror told WBZ-TV that the prosecution's case lacked a definitive, conclusive moment of proof, leaving too much uncertainty to reach a guilty verdict.
