CLANCY JURORS OPEN UP ABOUT HOLDOUT

Three jurors from Lindsay Clancy's murder trial sat down with NBC10 Boston Tuesday to explain how seven days of deliberation produced nothing. The whole answer is one guy. Foreperson Roni Carlson, a retired fifth-grade teacher, said the holdout finally admitted he had reasonable doubt. She was so excited she started filling out the three verdict forms and signed her name on each one. Then he said he still wasn't going to say Clancy was not guilty by reason of insanity. Carlson said he couldn't articulate anything, really, and was very closed off, which is a hell of a position to hold for a week without a follow-up sentence. The panel of nine women and three men spent more than 38 hours on it and sent notes saying they were split 11 to 1, with the majority at one point telling the court the holdout couldn't follow the law on reasonable doubt. Judge William Sullivan reread his reasonable doubt instruction and sent them back in. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington tried to get the man removed, then filed an emergency appeal with the state's highest court, which reviewed it and said no. The three jurors said the arguing got loud enough that the six alternates could hear them. Clancy, 36, admitted she strangled her three children in the family's Duxbury home in January 2023, so the only open question was criminal responsibility, and it is still open. DA Tim Cruz says no decision yet on a retrial. The judge wants to go again this fall, with a status conference at the end of the month. The holdout hasn't given his side and didn't respond to NBC10.

Why you should give a shit: Seven days, three signed forms, and one man who wouldn't finish a sentence, and now a whole new set of strangers may have to sit through the worst trial in Massachusetts again, because starting over is the only tool the system owns.