A woman who served as a juror in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial in Massachusetts gave a glimpse into the deliberations and said there were too many doubts for her to reach a guilty verdict. Clancy’s trial ended in a mistrial Friday due to a hung jury. According to a note sent to the judge by the foreman, there was an 11-to-1 split among jurors. A woman who was Juror No. 5 spoke with WBZ-TV’s Kristina Rex on Tuesday, although she asked to remain anonymous. “At the end of the day, there were a lot of questions,” the woman said. “The prosecution didn’t have figurative smoking gun. There wasn’t a single moment throughout the presentation of that case where you could say ‘Yes, I’m 100% sure she did it’ or that she didn’t do it. There were too many gray areas.” Juror Interview with Lindsay Clancy The jury said that from the beginning of deliberations, the majority of the room was trying to influence the lone holdout. “Most people, no matter what side they were on, were very firm in their stance and belief from the beginning,” he said. “The independent jury wasn’t the only one who wasn’t willing to see things from the other side. So, in a sense, I’m going to defend that individual. There were some big personalities in that room. But at the end of the day, it came down to an inability to overcome his convictions.” Full interview with the jury in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial 07:27 The juror who spoke to WBZ-TV initially said they believed Clancy should be found guilty and that he was criminally responsible for the deaths of his three children. “And maybe I still believe that in some ways. I think this was a woman who was not mentally healthy. This was someone who was in the middle of a major mental health crisis,” the juror said. “I really felt like I was so in it that I couldn’t see my way out.” The jury “will never be the same” after hearing the 911 call. Clancy’s attorney attempted to throw out the holdout jurors because he argued that they refused to apply the law’s instructions to reasonable doubt. “At the end of the day, to not follow that reasonable doubt and recognize that it’s there, morally and legally you can’t convict someone of that. And that was, therefore, a violation of his constitutional rights,” the jury said. “Basically, that’s what we were there as a jury to uphold that Constitution and give someone a fair trial from their peers. And I don’t necessarily think she was getting that with that jury. It’s not simply the fact that he had a contrary opinion or this person felt guilty. It was the inability to back that up with any logic.” When it came time to take on such a high-profile case, Juror No. 5 said there were moments of devastating testimony. In particular, she said hearing the 911 call from Patrick Clancy, Lindsay’s now ex-husband, was something she will never forget. The call was played in the courtroom but was not broadcast during the trial. “I will never be the same after that 911 call,” she said. “After the trial, I saw all the conspiracy theories about how Patrick did it and that he somehow convinced Lindsay that she had done it when it was actually him. All I could think was that if these people could have heard that visceral, blood-curdling scream, I don’t think I could name a single actor or actress who could have played that the way he did it, other than that he did it, but I’ll never be the same after that. It was horrible. Just imagining living through that and being the person to find your kids in that scene shakes you.” Prosecutors have not yet said whether they will retry the case a second time after the mistrial. More from CBS News at:
