PLYMOUTH, Mass. Last week, a mistrial brought the Lindsay Clancy murder trial to an end without a verdict. This week, attention has shifted from the trial itself to the jurors who deliberated over the case, especially the lone holdout whose differing vote left the panel divided 11–1.
When the jury first reported that it could not reach a unanimous decision, little was publicly known about the holdout.
During the final stages of the trial, it emerged that the holdout was a man. On Friday, fellow juror Paula Devlin disclosed another detail during an interview on CBS Mornings. She said he was a Black man in his 30s and the only Black member of the jury, which had 12 members.
Devlin said the jury consisted of nine women and three men whose ages ranged from 22 to approximately 70.
“Whoa, I have to sit with that for just a second,” host Gayle King responded.
The disclosure immediately drew attention. However, the juror’s race and age do not explain his vote, and no evidence has been presented showing that race influenced the deliberations.
The holdout has not been publicly identified and has not spoken about his decision.
How the Jury’s Position Changed
According to Devlin, the jury’s initial vote included eight jurors favoring a finding that Clancy was not criminally responsible, two favoring a guilty finding and two who were undecided.
Devlin said the division later moved to 10–2. Several jurors have reported that the panel ultimately stood at 11–1, with the holdout continuing to favor a guilty finding.
That division was not an official verdict. A unanimous decision was required.
Clancy has not disputed that she killed her three children, Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months, at the family’s Duxbury home on January 24, 2023.
Her defense argued that severe mental illness, including postpartum psychosis, left her without criminal responsibility. Prosecutors maintained that she acted deliberately and understood the wrongfulness of her actions.
What the Holdout Reportedly Questioned
Devlin said the holdout had difficulty reconciling the claim that Clancy was experiencing psychosis with the series of actions involved in the children’s deaths and her subsequent suicide attempt.
That account offers limited insight into what may have concerned him, but it does not represent his complete explanation. The holdout has not publicly described how he evaluated the evidence or reached his conclusion.
Most of what is currently known about his reasoning and conduct comes from jurors who ultimately disagreed with him.
Different Accounts of the Deliberations
Juror Nick Dargie told ABC News that the holdout sometimes declined to engage and, in Dargie’s view, did not identify evidence or testimony supporting his position.
Dargie also alleged that the juror took an exercise band admitted as evidence, tied it around an empty water bottle and pulled it. Dargie interpreted the action as a demonstration of the way the children were strangled and said he found it disturbing.
The holdout has not responded to Dargie’s account or explained the purpose of the demonstration.
Devlin acknowledged that jurors holding the minority position may have felt pressured as the panel’s division moved from 10–2 to 11–1. She said defending a position against most of the room could be difficult for anyone.
Before the mistrial, Clancy’s defense asked Judge William F. Sullivan to remove the holdout, alleging that he was not following the court’s instructions concerning reasonable doubt. Sullivan declined to remove him.
No court has found that the juror committed misconduct. A disagreement over the evidence, by itself, does not establish misconduct.
Criticized by Some, Praised by Others
Public reaction to the holdout has been sharply divided.
Some fellow jurors and commentators have accused him of refusing to meaningfully engage with the evidence or properly apply the court’s instructions. Those claims remain allegations based largely on accounts from jurors who disagreed with him.
Others have praised the holdout for maintaining his position despite pressure from the rest of the panel. Some social media users have called him a “hero” or “legend” for refusing to change his vote simply to produce a unanimous verdict.
Those descriptions reflect public opinion, not established findings about the juror’s conduct or reasoning.
Every juror was required to independently consider the evidence and follow the judge’s instructions. A juror was not required to abandon an honestly held conclusion merely because the other 11 jurors disagreed.
Because the holdout has remained silent, the public has heard only a partial account of what happened inside the deliberation room.
What Happens Next
Sullivan declared a mistrial on September 4 after approximately 38 hours of deliberations over seven days.
The mistrial ended the trial without a verdict. Clancy was neither convicted nor acquitted.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington has since filed a motion asking Sullivan to enter a finding of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. He argues that prosecutors presented insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy understood the wrongfulness of her actions.
The motion is expected to be addressed during a September 29 hearing. Prosecutors have not announced whether they will seek another trial.
Until the holdout chooses to speak, his complete perspective and his response to the accounts being offered by other jurors will remain unknown.