A juror in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial provided new details Thursday about the lone holdout on the panel, including that he acted out the killings on a water bottle during deliberations.
Nick Dargie, 25, was one of the three men on the 12-person jury tasked with determining whether Clancy should be held criminally responsible for the 2023 strangulation deaths of her three young children: Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months old. He told “Good Morning America” on Thursday about his frustrations with the holdout juror, who has yet to be publicly identified.
“I think we felt defeated,” Dargie said about the case’s conclusion. “We spent seven weeks on this trial, almost two months of, you know, all of our lives dedicated to it.”
He is among at least five jurors — and the first male — who have spoken out about the case and what happened inside the deliberation room at Plymouth Superior Court last week. After more than 38 hours, the jurors could not reach a unanimous decision, forcing Judge William Sullivan to declare a mistrial after they deadlocked three times.
On Thursday, defense attorney Kevin Reddington filed a renewed motion to find Clancy not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility on each of the three charges, arguing that the prosecution did not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Clancy was not in psychosis at the time of the killings.
Dargie told “Good Morning America” that toward the end of deliberations, the holdout juror would not engage in discussions with others or provide evidence that supported his reasoning, instead choosing to scroll on his phone.
Ultimately, Dargie said, he confronted the holdout juror after the man mimicked the killings, tying an exercise band entered into evidence around an empty water bottle and pulling it tight. Dargie said he is not sure why the man did that.
“I was shocked. It didn’t make any sense to me,” Dargie said. “We’re not in here to play detective or it’s not a game of Clue. This is serious.”
Throughout the trial, Clancy’s defense attorney argued that she was in a state of psychosis when she strangled the children with exercise bands and therefore was not aware of what she was doing. The prosecution, however, argued she was not actually experiencing postpartum psychosis and planned the killings ahead of time.
Three women on the jury told NBC Boston that the 11 jurors agreed to find Clancy not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility. The holdout wanted to convict, they revealed, but admitted he expressed doubt in the prosecution’s case.
“It was definitely frustrating, mainly frustrating when [the holdout juror] explicitly said, ‘You know, I don’t know if the prosecution or the defense proved their case,’” Dargie told “GMA.”
Reddington in the motion also pointed to the fact that in this case, every juror except one — who did not apply the reasonable-doubt standard — came to that same conclusion.
“No rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that she had no mental disease or defect when the Commonwealth’s own proof established that she did,” the motion said, noting the 11-1 jury split.
And at first, Dargie said, a number of jurors thought Clancy was guilty of the crimes, and at times the jury’s votes differed day to day.
A female juror who spoke with WBZ-TV of Boston anonymously said many people on the jury were initially “firm in their beliefs,” and that she was one of the people who, at first, agreed with the holdout and thought Clancy was guilty.
She explained how there was so much “gray area” and doubt in the case, and that ultimately, she switched her tune because she thinks Clancy is mentally unwell and that she’d get better help in a state mental health facility than in prison.
Dargie told “GMA” that “once we laid out all of the evidence and how we saw it, that really brought everyone kind of on the same page, except for this one juror.” The female juror chalked it up to one person being unable to let go of their convictions.
When that one juror didn’t agree with the group, Dargie said, he asked him to show evidence that “helped to prove what he was saying, but he couldn’t.” That’s what led the jury foreperson to send a note to the judge about the holdout during deliberations, explaining that he wasn’t meeting the burden of reasonable doubt the prosecution must overcome.
Dargie acknowledged that it’s fair for someone to have a differing opinion but said this particular juror would not engage and could not “find something to support his view.”
Now, prosecutors must decide whether they want to retry Clancy. The next hearing for the case is scheduled for Sept. 29.
Dargie, who was serving in the military overseas, said he’s “haunted” by the case. Specifically, he said, the recording of the 911 call made by Clancy’s then-husband, Patrick Clancy, when he found the dead children that night is seared into his memory. The recording was played in court and was not released to the public.
“I’ve never heard something like that, like a scream like that, come out of someone’s mouth,” Dargie said of the recording. “It’s horrifying.”
The anonymous female juror told CBS Boston that she will “never be the same after that 911 call.”
Dargie also rejected online conspiracy theories that Patrick Clancy was actually the one who carried out the killings, noting that if anyone had heard the 911 calls, they would change their mind.
“I think if they tried the trial again the way they did, I think nine times out of 10, I think the jury would come back with not guilty by reason of insanity, no doubt,” Dargie said.
