A fifth juror has come forward about the Lindsay Clancy mistrial, describing a single holdout who reportedly couldn’t back up his position with evidence during nearly 40 hours of deliberation.
The high profile Lindsay Clancy case ended without a verdict last week and now jurors are increasingly willing to talk about why.
Nick Dargie, 25, one of just three men on the panel, told ABC News that the lone holdout never gave the group anything concrete to work with.
“There were several times I would ask him to show us evidence, or describe a witness testimony that helped to prove what he was saying, and he couldn’t,” Dargie said.
Dargie also underlined that differing opinions wasn’t the problem. A divided jury built on a real, reasoned difference of opinion would have made sense to him. What frustrated the group was different: a position with nothing behind it.
Several accounts on how things played out
Jurors sent four separate messages to the judge as deliberations dragged on toward the 40-hour mark.
The first two flagged a deadlock. The third specifically named concerns about how the holdout juror was interpreting reasonable doubt. By the fourth, they were telling the court plainly: they weren’t going to agree.
District Attorney Timothy Cruz hasn’t said whether he’ll pursue a retrial.
Outside the courthouse after the mistrial was declared, he struck a measured tone: “I appreciate the fact that there are strong feelings and opinions tied to this case. However, our job is to set aside our feelings and focus solely on the facts. The facts are Lindsay Clancy killed her three children and the evidence suggested to us that she was in control of her actions when she committed those homicides.”
The recording no one in that room will forget
Dargie is now the fifth person from the panel to go on record. The accounts have filled in a lot of blanks about what actually happened during deliberations.
Juror Kellie Farina, speaking separately to NBC10 Boston, described the moment that stuck with her more than anything else: hearing the desperate 911 call Patrick Clancy made after finding his injured wife and dead children. That audio was never made public.
“It’s something I will never not hear if I think about it,” she said. “When we heard it again in the jury room, we were crying again.”
Foreperson Roni Carlson says all twelve of them had initially landed on a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict, and that she’d even started filling out paperwork before the holdout reversed course.
By her account, the holdout juror had said he had reasonable doubt, only to backtrack moments later: “But I’m still not going to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.”
She described the room as emotionally raw throughout, full of tears and hugging, calling the failure to reach a verdict “heartbreaking.”
Holdout juror kept questioning toxicology results
Another juror, who works for a defense contractor, said the holdout kept questioning toxicology results tied to medications Clancy had been prescribed, even after nurses on the jury walked through the numbers with him directly.
“We had the toxicology reports. We could see exactly the amounts,” the juror said, adding that he brushed the explanation aside anyway.
Two more jurors, Paula Devlin and Farina, described him as difficult to reach entirely, Devlin calling him “very arrogant” and unwilling to engage with anyone’s input, Farina saying he simply wouldn’t interact with the group.
A fourth juror, speaking anonymously to WBZ-TV, framed the whole case differently, saying the evidence never landed cleanly on either side.
“There was not a single moment where you could say ‘Yup, 100% I’m certain she did it’ or that she didn’t do it. There was too much gray area.”
The holdout juror’s identity remains unknown and as of now he hasn’t made a public comment.
Read more:
