Lone juror responsible for Lindsay Clancy mistrial 'admitted reasonable doubt'
The decision to call a mistrial came after jurors twice indicated they had been unable to reach a decision in the murder trial
A single juror who forced a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy murder case 'admitted reasonable doubt', the foreperson has revealed.
Listen to this article
Speaking out in the wake of the mistrial, a number of jury members, including the foreperson, have revealed further details about the single man who ultimately blocked Clancy's acquittal.
The judge declared a mistrial last week after the jury failed to reach a verdict, and the Massachusetts appeals court denied the defence's last-minute motion.
The decision to declare a mistrial came after seven days of deliberation, with the jury reminded on Thursday by the judge of the legal tests required, before the members were sent back to consider their verdict once again.
By law, the court could not accept a majority verdict.
Now, foreperson Ronni Carlson has revealed in her first on-screen interview since the trial that at one point during deadlocked deliberations, the group persuaded the lone juror arguing for a conviction to acquit Clancy.
"He admitted he had reasonable doubt. I started filling out the forms," Ms Carlson said.
"There were three forms I had to fill out, and I started filling them out. I wrote my signature on each one.
However, the man in question then said: "But I'm still not going to say that she's not guilty by reason of insanity."
Under Massachusetts law, unanimous verdicts are the only possible outcome.
In a case that gripped the US - and sleuths worldwide, courtesy of live-streamed court coverage - the former delivery nurse insisted she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.
The psychosis defence would ultimately see her found not guilty due to a lack of criminal responsibility.
Moments after declaring a mistrial on Friday, Judge Sullivan paused the formal declaration for one hour, allowing Clancy's lawyer the opportunity to lodge an emergency appeal.
However, the Massachusetts appeals court denied the defence's last-minute motion.
Clancy doesn't deny the killings, but continues to insist that she was innocent.
Clancy’s defence lawyer, Kevin Reddington, had earlier objected to the move, insisting that one juror, deemed to be holding up the unanimous verdict, be removed.
In the note to the judge, jurors had claimed the single juror “refused to listen” to the court’s directions.
After the jury returned to court on Friday, the judge read out a note from the jury declaring it was deadlocked for a third time.
"It is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to."
With gasps heard in the courtroom, the judge asked the defence and prosecution for their thoughts.
Lindsay Clancy's lawyer, Mr Reddington, said the fact that the jury submitted a "very unusual" note meant that deliberations should continue.
Speaking later on outside the courtroom, Mr Reddington said the outcome came down to a single juror who did not follow the law on reasonable doubt.
He said his client and her parents were "robbed by one (juror) for whatever (their) agenda was".
"And I got a funny feeling that they (the jury) would have gone on for another week if they had to. So I hope that (juror) can sleep well at night."
He also said that he wanted the same 11 jurors who appeared to be in Lindsay Clancey's favour if there is a retrial.
"Obviously, if we didn't have that one individual, we would have had a verdict and we would be out of here," he said.
"I don't know if we will be able to get jurors that are not aware of this case anywhere, New York, Washington, Georgia, Japan, India, I don't know, anywhere."