Juror on Lindsay Clancy trial says ‘we let down Lindsay’ following mistrial

Full account

A mistrial has been declared in the case of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts woman accused of strangling her three young children in January 2023, after jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. Clancy's defence did not dispute that she killed Cora, five, Dawson, three, and Callan, eight months old, but argued she should not be held criminally responsible because she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis at the time. Prosecutors contended that, despite evidence of mental illness, she remained criminally responsible for her children's deaths. Eleven of the twelve jurors ultimately favoured finding Clancy not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, the state's equivalent of an insanity defence, but a single holdout juror prevented a unanimous decision, forcing the judge to declare a mistrial.

One of the jurors who sided with the majority, a 65-year-old woman named Paula (identified by the Daily Mail as Paula Devlin), has since spoken publicly about the deliberations. She said the panel began by polling themselves informally, with eight jurors initially favouring a finding of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, two believing Clancy was guilty, and two undecided, before the group moved towards an 11-1 split. She described the process as gruelling, noting that jurors were asked to work through around 297 pieces of evidence, including an emotionally difficult 911 call made by Clancy's then-husband, Patrick, after he discovered the children unresponsive on returning home from an errand to collect medication and takeaway food.

Paula said the experience left her and other jurors feeling they had failed Clancy, describing the difficulty of separating sympathy for the children from the jury's legal task. She said the majority of the panel came to believe that Clancy had been let down by the healthcare system in the lead-up to the killings, and argued that greater awareness and support around postpartum mental health could help prevent similar tragedies within families. According to the Daily Mail's account, other jurors in the majority also expressed feelings of defeat and frustration once the mistrial was declared, having believed for much of the week-long deliberations that a unanimous verdict was within reach.

Much of the reporting on the lone dissenting juror comes from the Daily Mail's interview with Paula, in which she described him as a married man who kept largely to himself during the trial, spending breaks on his phone or speaking with his wife rather than socialising with fellow jurors. She said he was reluctant to explain his reasoning during deliberations, initially declining to set out his concerns on a whiteboard until another juror volunteered to write on his behalf, and that he instead spent considerable time urging the group to be more courteous when multiple jurors spoke over one another. Among the specific concerns eventually attributed to him was the amount of blood found at the family's home in Duxbury, near Boston. Fox News's account, drawn from a separate WCVB interview, focuses more heavily on Paula's emotional reaction and her comments on the healthcare system, giving fewer specifics about the holdout juror's demeanour or the exact location and nature of the evidence involved. Clancy's legal team has reportedly indicated it intends to file a new motion to dismiss the case following the mistrial.

• www.foxnews.com
• www.dailymail.com