Three female jurors from Lindsay Clancy's murder trial have described how they were persuaded that the mother-of-three was not guilty by reason of insanity, before a lone holdout juror forced a mistrial. Clancy, 36, a former labour and delivery nurse, admitted strangling her three young children with exercise bands in January 2023, but her defence argued she was overmedicated for postpartum depression and had suffered a drug-induced psychosis at the time. The case matters because it highlights the difficulty juries face in weighing an admitted act against a defendant's mental state, and it means Clancy now faces the prospect of a retrial rather than resolution.

Jury foreperson Roni Carlson told NBC Boston that evidence of Clancy's devotion to her children, including journal entries and testimony from her mother-in-law, convinced eleven of the twelve jurors that she "had to have snapped" and did not know right from wrong. However, one juror refused to acquit despite reportedly admitting he had reasonable doubt, and would not engage with fellow jurors' reasoning. After more than 37 hours of deliberation over five-and-a-half weeks of evidence, and a failed emergency motion from defence attorney Kevin Reddington, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial at Plymouth Superior Court. Reddington has since publicly appealed to President Trump for a pardon, describing Clancy as a "wonderful" and hardworking person.