Juror reveals how lone holdout derailed Lindsay Clancy murder verdict

The jury that heard the Lindsay Clancy case could not agree on a verdict, and now one juror is explaining why. Paula Devlin, who sat on the twelve-person panel, told CBS Mornings that the deliberations began with the jurors scattered across the spectrum of guilt and innocence. Eight believed Clancy was not responsible. Two were undecided. Two said guilty of murder. By the time the jury reached an impasse, the split had shifted dramatically: eleven jurors believed Clancy should be found not responsible, and one man held firm that she was guilty of murder.

Clancy killed her three young children—Cora, five years old; Dawson, three; and Callan, eight months—on January 24, 2023, in their home in Duxbury, Massachusetts. Her defense argued she was not criminally responsible because she had been overmedicated and was suffering from a mental health crisis. Prosecutors contended she had planned the killings and understood the difference between right and wrong. The trial ended last Friday after more than seven days of deliberation without a unanimous verdict.

Devlin said the jury spent several days trying to persuade the holdout to reconsider his position. The effort failed. She described the dynamic as painful—the other jurors felt they had to attack his reasoning to make their case, and she sensed he felt under siege. "Even in normal conversation, when it is pointed at you and you have to defend yourself, it's a hard thing to do," she told King. "We don't have to always do that." The jury was composed of nine women and three men, ranging in age from twenty-two to about seventy. The lone holdout was a Black man in his thirties, the only minority member on the panel.

Devlin said two witnesses shaped her thinking most powerfully. Dr. Phillip Resnick, a forensic psychiatrist, testified about altruistic filicide—the psychological condition in which a parent believes killing their children is in the children's best interest. That testimony struck her as crucial because throughout the trial, every witness had spoken of Clancy as a devoted mother, a woman who loved her children deeply. The photographs taken in the house on the night of the killings showed evidence of that love everywhere—a sign reading "It's a wonderful life" hung on the wall. Hearing Resnick explain a real psychological mechanism that could account for such a tragedy, despite all that love, was transformative for her understanding of the case.

Equally powerful was the testimony of Patrick Clancy, Lindsay's ex-husband and the man who discovered the children after Lindsay attempted to take her own life. Devlin noted that prosecutors seemed to be pushing him to say something damaging about his former wife, but he refused. Even after losing three children and knowing what had happened, he could not bring himself to speak badly of her. That restraint, that continued compassion, moved the jury.

Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, filed a motion on Thursday asking the court to throw out the mistrial and acquit Clancy outright. He made the decision after speaking with several jurors about the holdout's conduct. Reddington said he would respect anyone's right to hold out, even for weeks. But he objected when the jury foreperson indicated that the holdout had reasonable doubt and simply refused to follow the judge's instructions on the law. "That's when I was upset," he said.

Devlin, however, does not support Reddington's motion to dismiss, even though she believes Clancy should be found not responsible. She said justice would mean Clancy receiving the mental health treatment she needs, not walking free. "Those children never left that room. They've never left our hearts," Devlin said. "And that was a way to get justice for those children. This wouldn't have happened if Lindsay didn't get lost in the system and failed by the system." The motion will be heard on September 29. The district attorney has not indicated whether he will refile charges, though Reddington has suggested he would be open to a plea deal involving lesser charges.