Lindsay Clancy holdout juror had no doubt she deliberately killed her children
It is the first time the juror, who refused to side with the others and acquit Clancy, has spoken publicly about his decision.
Lindsay Clancy holdout juror said he had no doubt she intentionally killed her children
The sole juror who held out in Lindsay Clancy’s trial said he “didn’t have any doubts” that she was criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children.
“Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses and what the prosecution presents, I thought it was enough proof that she knew exactly what she was doing and planned it,” Michael Desronvil said in a statement to CBS News, the BBC’s US partner.
The judge declared a mistrial on 4 September after the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict after nearly 40 hours of deliberation.
Clancy admitted to the killings, but her lawyers argued that she had been suffering from postpartum psychosis. Prosecutors said the killings were calculated.
The 36-year-old was charged with three counts of first-degree murder after strangling Cora, five, Dawson, three, and Callan, eight months, at the family’s Massachusetts home before jumping out of the second-floor window.
To convict Clancy, jurors had to agree unanimously beyond reasonable doubt that she intentionally killed her children and did not do so because of postpartum psychosis, a rare and serious condition.
The jury — nine women and three men — weighed several possibilities, including not guilty by reason of insanity, manslaughter and first-degree murder.
After the mistrial was announced, several jurors said the panel had ultimately split 11-1 in favor of finding Clancy not criminally responsible.
Desronvil said he believed the evidence shown in court demonstrated that she had planned the killings.
“I didn’t have any doubts,” he said in a statement to CBS on Thursday.
“As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence presented.”
Paula Devlin, another juror, told CBS Mornings that the panel spent several days trying to persuade Desronvil to change his view.
“We all worked together to convince ourselves once we got to that point where it was 10 to 2,” she said.
The jury foreperson, a retired fifth-grade teacher, described failing to reach a verdict as “awful” and an “emotional rollercoaster”.
She told NBC that Desronvil had “admitted he had reasonable doubt”, but as she began filling out the verdict sheets, he apparently said: “But I’m still not going to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.”
Another juror told local CBS station WBZ-TV that most jurors had been “very firm in their stance” from the beginning and that “the stand-alone juror was not the only one that was unwilling to see things from the other side”.
But they added that because Desronvil would not “follow” his reasonable doubt or provide logical reasoning for his position, they felt Clancy had not received a fair trial.
The identities of all 11 jurors have not been officially disclosed, but in the US, once a case is over, any juror may choose to speak publicly about the case and their deliberations.
Patrick Clancy, the children’s father and Lindsay Clancy’s ex-husband, is due to speak publicly about the case in an interview with the CBS programme 60 Minutes on Sunday.
He is expected to discuss his grief, his memories of his children and the conspiracy theories that have spread across social media since the trial began.
He said he still speaks to his children “all the time”, describing it as “a way I stay connected to them”.
During the trial, Clancy’s defence team tried to use the fact that she had been placed on more than a dozen medications in the lead-up to the killings, as well as her seeking help from a suicide hotline and an emergency room, as evidence of psychosis.
Postpartum psychosis can include hallucinations and delusions, and her lawyers argued that she was unable to understand the nature of her actions or tell right from wrong.
A forensic psychiatrist who testified for the defence said Clancy experienced a “command hallucination” and a “delusion of influence” when she killed her children.
However, her psychiatrist testified for the prosecution that Clancy did not show signs of psychosis during their sessions, while another psychiatrist said the condition is not currently recognised by the American Psychiatric Association.
Under Massachusetts law, prosecutors had to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Clancy was criminally responsible for the jury to find her guilty. The defence did not have to prove her mental illness or lack of criminal responsibility.
The mistrial leaves the case unresolved. Prosecutors have not said whether they will seek a retrial.
Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, said he hopes to reach an agreement with prosecutors to avoid a second trial.
He told ABC’s Good Morning America that he was upset the lone juror would not acquit Clancy.
He said the holdout “would not apply the law of reasonable doubt” as instructed by the judge, adding: “That’s not right. And that’s why I was upset.”
The next court hearing is scheduled for 29 September at Plymouth Superior Court in Massachusetts.