“NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE” — LINDSAY CLANCY JUROR BREAKS SILENCE ON THE ONE VOTE THAT STOPPED THE VERDICT

One juror stood apart from the other 11 — and now a fellow juror says he could not point to a single piece of evidence or witness testimony supporting his position.

The Lindsay Clancy trial ended without a verdict.

But the controversy surrounding the jury has only grown louder.

Days after a Massachusetts judge declared a mistrial, one of the jurors who voted with the majority is speaking publicly about the extraordinary deadlock that brought the five-week trial to an end.

Nick Dargie, 25, told ABC News that he repeatedly asked the lone holdout juror to explain what evidence or testimony supported his position.

According to Dargie, he never received an answer.

“There wasn’t a single piece of evidence or witness testimony that he used to prove why he was thinking the way he was.”

That disagreement ultimately became one of the defining moments of the trial.

THE 11-1 SPLIT

The jury consisted of nine women and three men.

After more than six days of deliberations, the jurors remained deadlocked 11-1.

The holdout juror’s position prevented the panel from reaching the unanimous verdict required to resolve the case.

Three female jurors previously spoke publicly about the deliberations, saying the holdout had acknowledged having reasonable doubt but still refused to support a finding that Clancy was not criminally responsible.

The foreperson said she had begun filling out the necessary forms after the juror acknowledged his doubt — only for him to change course and refuse to sign off on the verdict.

Another juror said the holdout struggled to move beyond the fact that Clancy had killed her children, despite the legal question the jury had been instructed to answer: whether she was criminally responsible for those acts.

“THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH AN OPPOSITE OPINION”

Dargie was careful to make one distinction.

He said having a completely different opinion is not itself a problem.

That, he explained, is exactly what a jury system allows.

“That would be a hung jury. That is our justice system.”

His criticism was instead focused on what he described as the lack of evidence offered to support the holdout’s position.

The distinction is important because the mistrial does not mean the holdout juror was legally wrong.

It means the jury could not reach the unanimous decision required to conclude the case.

WHAT WAS THE JURY DECIDING?

Clancy, 36, did not dispute that she killed her three children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, at the family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in January 2023.

The central issue at trial was her criminal responsibility.

Her defense argued that Clancy was experiencing severe postpartum psychosis and had been overmedicated, leaving her legally unable to understand the wrongfulness of her actions.

Prosecutors argued that she deliberately killed the children and was criminally responsible.

More than 80 witnesses testified during the five-week trial, including medical experts, friends, law enforcement officers and Clancy’s former husband, Patrick.

THE HOLDOUT BECAME THE FOCUS

As deliberations continued, tension inside the jury room reportedly intensified.

One juror previously described the holdout as “very arrogant,” alleging that he repeatedly dismissed information presented by other jurors.

The juror also said the holdout raised questions about Clancy’s medications, but then appeared to disregard information from the toxicology report and testimony from nurses.

Another extraordinary detail has since emerged: Dargie said the holdout was at one point seen scrolling on his phone during deliberations.

He also recalled the juror using an exercise band to reenact the strangulation during discussions, a moment Dargie described as deeply disturbing.

THE JUDGE REFUSED TO REMOVE HIM

Clancy’s defense team had sought to have the holdout removed after the jury sent a note expressing concerns about his conduct.

Judge William Sullivan declined to replace him.

The deliberations continued, but the 11-1 divide never broke.

Eventually, the judge declared a mistrial on September 4.

The criminal case therefore remains unresolved.

WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

The mistrial does not automatically mean Clancy has been acquitted.

Prosecutors must decide whether to pursue another trial, while Clancy’s defense is preparing additional legal arguments aimed at preventing a retrial.

Her attorney, Kevin Reddington, has also indicated he intends to seek relief based on the circumstances surrounding the mistrial.

The parties are scheduled to return to court on September 29.

For now, Clancy remains in custody at Tewksbury Hospital.

And after five weeks of testimony, six-plus days of deliberations and an extraordinary 11-1 split, the question surrounding the case is no longer simply what happened in the Clancy home.

It is also this:

How did a jury that appeared overwhelmingly convinced reach the end without a verdict — and can the case ever reach a final answer?