The trial of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother charged with killing her three children in 2023, ended in a mistrial after a holdout juror refused to find her not guilty by reason of insanity despite expressing reasonable doubt during deliberations, according to the jury foreperson.

Clancy, 36, admitted to strangling her children—Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months—at their home last year. The 12-member jury, comprised of nine women and three men, was tasked with determining whether Clancy was legally insane at the time of the killings, a defense put forth by her attorneys who argued she was suffering from postpartum psychosis. Prosecutors contested that claim.

Roni Carlson, the foreperson, told NBC10 Boston that all but one juror was convinced to acquit Clancy on the insanity defense. The holdout juror, however, acknowledged to the panel that he had reasonable doubt but did not agree to declare Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity. “I started filling out the forms, I was so excited,” Carlson said. “And then he said, ‘But I’m still not going to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.’”

Fellow jurors described the holdout’s resistance differently. Juror Paula Devlin stated that the holdout “really did not take anything that anybody said,” while Kellie Farina said he struggled to move past the fact that Clancy “viciously killed her children.” The identity of the holdout juror has not been made public, and he has not spoken to the media.

Under Massachusetts law, jurors are allowed to discuss a trial once it concludes, but they are discouraged from revealing how fellow jurors voted or the details of their deliberations. The jury’s deadlock following seven days of deliberations resulted in the mistrial declaration last Friday.

Clancy’s defense lawyer, Kevin Reddington, requested intervention from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, alleging the holdout juror was not adhering to the judge’s instructions regarding reasonable doubt. The court denied the request.

Prosecutors have not yet indicated whether they will pursue a retrial. Should the case be heard again, a new jury would be selected to consider the matter.

The trial attracted national attention and intensified discussions around postpartum mental health. Carlson highlighted the jurors’ perspective on the case, emphasizing that the key issue was not whether Clancy committed the acts—she admitted to doing so—but whether she understood the nature and wrongfulness of her actions at the time. “Everything proved that she loved her children, so she had to have snapped,” Carlson said.