“NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE” — LINDSAY CLANCY JUROR REVEALS WHAT HAPPENED INSIDE THE DEADLOCKED JURY ROOM

A fellow juror says the lone holdout who prevented a unanimous verdict could not point to evidence or testimony supporting his position — a revelation that has renewed questions about the dramatic end to Lindsay Clancy’s trial.

ONE JUROR CHANGED EVERYTHING

The Lindsay Clancy trial ended without a verdict after one juror refused to join the other 11 members of the panel.

Now, a fellow juror is speaking publicly about what happened during the tense deliberations — and claims the holdout could not identify a single piece of evidence or witness testimony that supported his position.

Nick Dargie, 25, one of the three male jurors on the 12-person panel, described the deliberations in an interview with ABC News.

According to Dargie, he repeatedly asked the holdout juror to explain what evidence or testimony had led him to his conclusion.

“He couldn’t,” Dargie said.

The jury ultimately reached an 11-1 split, with 11 jurors supporting a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. The remaining juror continued to favor conviction.

THE QUESTION THAT COULD NOT BE ANSWERED

Dargie said the disagreement itself was not the problem.

A juror, he explained, is entitled to reach a different conclusion.

But he said the holdout repeatedly struggled to explain the basis for his position when other jurors asked him to point to evidence or testimony.

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

That eventually led the jury foreperson to send a note to Judge William Sullivan.

The judge ultimately declared a mistrial on September 4 after the jury failed to reach the unanimous verdict required to resolve the case.

WHAT THE TRIAL WAS REALLY ABOUT

Clancy, 36, was charged in connection with the January 2023 deaths of her three children — 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan — at the family’s home in Duxbury, Massachusetts.

Clancy admitted that she killed the children but pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

Her defense argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and other severe mental-health problems at the time and therefore was not criminally responsible for her actions.

Prosecutors argued that she was criminally responsible and that the evidence showed she understood what she was doing.

The question before the jury was therefore not simply whether Clancy caused her children’s deaths.

It was whether she should be held criminally responsible under Massachusetts law.

THE HOLDOUT’S POSITION

Several jurors have since spoken publicly about the deliberations.

They said the lone holdout acknowledged having reasonable doubt but nevertheless remained unwilling to vote for an insanity verdict.

Other jurors described him as unwilling to engage with their arguments and said he did not appear persuaded by extensive medical testimony presented during the trial.

Dargie emphasized that having a different opinion was not itself improper.

“If somebody has a completely opposite opinion,” he said, that could simply result in a hung jury.

But he suggested the difficulty came from the holdout’s inability, in his view, to connect his position to evidence presented during the five-week trial.

A MOMENT THAT LEFT ANOTHER JUROR “SHOCKED”

Dargie also described another moment during deliberations that he said left him stunned.

According to his account, the holdout picked up an exercise band that had been introduced as evidence and used it together with an empty water bottle to demonstrate how the band could be pulled.

Dargie said he confronted him and asked why he was doing it.

He described the moment as deeply unsettling and said jurors were supposed to evaluate the evidence rather than conduct their own experiments.

The account is Dargie’s recollection of the jury-room proceedings and was not itself a finding by the court.

NOW THE CASE IS UNRESOLVED

The mistrial means there was no final verdict in Clancy’s case.

Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not announced whether prosecutors will seek another trial.

The parties are scheduled to return to court on September 29 to discuss the next steps.

Clancy remains in custody at a state hospital.

For now, the case that consumed five weeks of testimony remains unresolved — and the story of the 11-1 jury split has become almost as significant as the verdict that never came.

One juror’s refusal to change his position was enough to prevent a unanimous decision.

And now, after jurors have begun speaking publicly, the question surrounding those final days of deliberations is no longer simply why the jury disagreed — but why one juror could not be persuaded by the evidence presented at trial.