YouTube
Earlier this week, three jurors spoke out about their experience during the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. Now another juror is speaking out about his time, too.
Clancy was on trial for the murder of her three young children, with the defense arguing she was not criminally responsible because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.
To vote guilty, each juror would have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she intentionally killed her three kids with sound mind and was not experiencing a psychotic break. This would result in Clancy spending the rest of her life in jail. To vote not guilty by reason of insanity, the jury would have to agree there was reasonable doubt and be convinced that Clancy’s actions were the result of psychosis. This would result in Clancy spending the rest of her life in a state psychiatric hospital. Neither option would have set her free.
Related: Clancy’s Lawyer Defends Her Ex-Husband Against Conspiracy Theories
Ultimately, 11 out of the 12 jurors wanted to vote NOT GUILTY by reason of insanity. The lone juror who wanted a GUILTY verdict held out, though, and a mistrial was declared. What the other jury members find upsetting about his holdout is, they claim, he did admit reasonable doubt but still refused to vote for NGI. The foreperson of the jury said in an interview on Tuesday:
“He had reasonable doubt. After we watched that video of the interview, I believe that’s when it was, he admitted he had reasonable doubt. There were three forms I had to fill out and I started filling them out, I wrote my signature on each one but then he said, ‘But I’m still not going to say she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.'”
One juror even called him “very arrogant” and alleged:
“He would not interact with us and try to understand. We read to him, on numerous occasions, the definition of reasonable doubt from Judge [William] Sullivan’s instruction. But he had the hardest time getting over the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.”
Now, another juror is stepping forward with his account of what happened, and what he says supports the previous jurors’ claims.
In an interview with ABC News, military vet Nick Dargie makes it clear that “there’s nothing wrong with someone having a completely opposite opinion. That would be a hung jury. That is our justice system.” But ultimately, it didn’t feel like that’s what happened. Dargie explains:
“There were several times I would ask him to show us evidence to help prove what he was saying. And he couldn’t. There wasn’t a single piece of evidence or witness testimony that he used to prove why he was thinking the way he was, which is why we ultimately sent in that note [to the judge]. “
The note the jury sent into the judge informed the court they were deadlocked and that a lone juror refused to follow the court’s instructions regarding reasonable doubt. Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, then asked the judge if the lone juror could be dismissed, but the judge decided he could stay. Instead, the judge went in and reread the instructions to the jury. Nothing changed, though, and eventually a mistrial was declared.
Dargie further explained what went on behind closed doors, claiming the holdout juror did not seem engaged with the other jury members at times, and — most importantly — did express doubt in the case but still wanted to convict Lindsay Clancy.
“It was definitely frustrating, mainly frustrating when he explicitly said, ‘I don’t know if the prosecution or the defense prove their case.'”
Wow. With doubt like that, no wonder the jurors felt he wasn’t correctly applying the law.
Lindsay has never denied she killed her children. Again, the case was about whether she did so of sound mind and with criminal responsibility, or if she did so under a state of psychosis.
Things became tense in the deliberation room, but the worst moment, Dargie recalls, was when the holdout reenacted the murders in front of the others by using one of the same exercise bands Clancy used to kill her children:
“He took the exercise band out of the bag, grabbed an empty water bottle, and tied the band around the water bottle and pulled it. I was shocked. It didn’t make any sense to me. We’re not in here to play detective. It’s not a game of Clue. This is serious. I asked him, ‘Why are you doing that?’ … Disgusting.”
Dargie is now left “haunted” by the entirety of the trial, everything he had to sit through, all the witness testimony and evidence, but he still believes Lindsay is not guilty by reason of insanity. Watch his full interview (below):
The internet, meanwhile, remains divided. As for why some have a hard time understanding postpartum psychosis? Clancy’s lawyer thinks it’s because it’s “easier” for a lot of people to just want to “punish someone” and throw them in jail. Reddington argues that real, lasting justice would come in raising awareness to help ensure better medical and psychiatric treatment for mothers so society can prevent horrific cases like this from happening ever again. To protect more families going forward.
So what happens now? Clancy’s attorney hopes he can work with the prosecution to reach some kind of deal. We’ll have to wait and see how that plays out.
Thoughts about all this? Let us know in the comments.
To learn more about postpartum depression and psychosis, CLICK HERE.
[Image via YouTube/ABC, Law & Crime.]