PLYMOUTH, Mass. — A juror from the Lindsay Clancy murder trial has broken his silence, and the allegations he is leveling against a lone holdout juror are igniting a firestorm of controversy, raising serious questions about whether justice was truly served in a case that has gripped the nation.
Nick Dargy, identified as Juror #10, sat down for his first interview with ABC’s Good Morning America, and his account of what transpired behind the closed doors of the deliberation room is painting a picture of chaos, frustration, and a stunning breach of legal protocol. Dargy claims the single juror who refused to join the other 11 in voting for a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity engaged in behavior that he described as “disgusting” and akin to playing “a game of clue.”
The trial, which ended in a hung jury on July 11, saw the Commonwealth accuse Clancy of the brutal strangulation murders of her three children, 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan, in their Duxbury, Massachusetts home on January 24, 2023. The prosecution argued that the act was premeditated and deliberate. The defense, led by attorney Kevin Reddington, countered that Clancy, a former nurse, was in the throes of psychosis brought on by giving birth, arguing she lacked the criminal responsibility to be held liable for her actions.
For seven days, the jury deliberated for roughly 38 hours before seeking an impasse. Now, Dargy is revealing the tension that allegedly defined that period. He specifically recounts an instance where the holdout juror, whose identity is still shielded, allegedly used one of the exercise bands—the very type of objects the prosecution said were used to 𝓀𝒾𝓁𝓁 three defenseless children—and wound it around a water bottle, seemingly to recreate or simulate the act of strangulation within the deliberation room.
In comments obtained by the network, Dargy recounted the moment and his own visceral reaction. “I was just so shocked. It didn’t make any sense to me,” he said in the interview, set to air on Friday but detailed in segments released Thursday.
“We’re not here to play detective. It’s not a game of clue. This is serious.
I asked him why he was doing that. He didn’t have a reply that made sense to me.”
Dargy also claimed that this same juror was repeatedly unable to point to specific pieces of evidence or witness testimony that supported his position, despite being asked to do so. He further alleged that the holdout juror admitted, “I don’t know if the prosecution or defense proved their case,” while simultaneously, according to Dargy, not engaging in the deliberation process, at times even scrolling through a phone. “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.”
While Dargy did not personally corroborate seeing the holdout on his phone, his comments come as he revealed that the initial polls in what they now know was a deadlocked jury room were far from unanimous. “At first, some jurors were leaning toward a guilty verdict,” Dargy stated. However, as deliberations extended, the 11 other jurors, including Dargy, reportedly coalesced around a verdict of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.
They aligned more closely with the defense’s expert witnesses who testified that Clancy, 36, was suffering from psychosis and was over-medicated and clearly ill.
“You feel defeated,” Dargy said of the final outcome, confirming that the majority planned to vote for the defense’s theory of insanity. He believes that if the case is retried with a new jury, nine out of ten times, the result would likely be the same, citing the prosecution’s failure to present a “smoking gun.”
The defense attorney, Kevin Redington, was pointed in his initial response in what he said following the mistrial, calling the lone holdout a menacing figure, telling reporters outside the courtroom that his client had been “robbed” by the juror, he prosecutor for the Commonwealth, Shannon Frison, gave a trial closing argument that was emotionally charged, but in a recent statement after the mistrial, prosecutor Tim Cruz merely stated they were ready to retry the case, a stance Redington is fiery challenging.
The defense now is filing a document ahead of the September 29th hearing in an attempt to dismiss charges entirely, arguing that a retrial would violate Clancy’s right against double jeopardy. Redington did not shy away from his personal disdain for the lone juror, telling GMA in the follow-up interview that he hopes the man can “sleep at night.”
“He had an opinion that, according to the note from the foreperson, that he had doubt, but he would not apply the law of reasonable doubt as presented by the judge,” Redington said. “That’s not right.”
This controversial stance has fueled a national debate over the jury’s role and state of mind. But, Dargy’s account of the conversation is not going without challenge. A separate juror spoke with CBS News, giving a nuanced and more cooperative portrait of the dynamics inside the room.
That juror stated, “The standalone juror was not the only one who was unwilling to see things from the other side… There were some big personalities in that room, but at the end of the day, I feel like it just came down to an inability to kind of move past your convictions.”
They continued, echoing Dargy’s beliefs that the Commonwealth’s case was flawed. “The prosecution didn’t have a figurative smoking gun. There was not a single moment throughout the presentation of that case where you could say, ‘Yep, 100% I’m certain she did it,’ or that she didn’t do it.
There was too much gray area.”
Legal experts in the aftermath are quick to point fingers and offer explanations, and Dargy’s comment about the holdout’s phone should immediately be scrutinized. Massachusetts law revokes 20-G of the Massachusetts General Laws, which explicitly forbids any non-unanimous juror from having a phone inside the deliberation room. If true, this stands as a glaring violation.
Dargy also offered substantial beef behind the scenes, noting that the holdout had “the hardest time getting off the fact that [Clancy] viciously killed her children.” This sentiment was echoed by a juror who spoke to NBC10 Boston, saying the holdout was “hard on the hardest time getting past the act itself.” But that same juror, who supported the majority verdict, said they felt he had “admitted he had reasonable doubt,” and were so confident when they signed identical documents.
“He admitted he had reasonable doubt. And I started filling out the forms. I was so excited.
There were three forms I had to fill out. And I started filling them out. I wrote my signature on each one.
And then he said, ‘But I’m still not going to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.'”
Another female juror, named Kelly Fina, told NBC10 that the holdout was “very arrogant” and dismissed the testimony about Clancy’s mental state, importance. Despite all the media interviews, the lone juror has remained silent.
Before the trial, concerns about the jurors leaning either way gave rise to a devastating reality: the jury was hung 11 to 1 to deliver a verdict, a death. Now questions are be being raised over whether Judge Sullivan erred in not pressing the holdout juror on his motives at the initial stages of the deadlock, considering the defense is mounting a rights legal fight over double, citing a “wind at their back” on a possible retrial.
Patrick Clancy, the father of the three children, had yet to speak publicly since the mistrial. Discussions have swirled about Patrick’s involvement in Clancy’s defense, however, this jurors reveal movingly.
Dargy paused after being asked about the conspiracies concerning… “I think if everyone heard that 911 call, they would change their mind.”
This sentiment is being backed by key evidence. In the days leading up to the murders, records show Lindsay Clancy planned her final moments, conducting massive online web searches for the loud and filicide weeks before.
The trial, which marked a Maryland case on mental health and the limits of criminal responsibility, is now in an uncomfortable period. Prosecutors have announced their intention to retry, but if the jury hangs again and Greene, the defense has already shown they will pursue the double jeopardy clause.
The state will await final submissions from the SJC on the motion to dismiss the top charge. The district attorney is under pressure to decide whether to enter into a lesser plea to second-degree murder, which holds the possibility of a bench trial and avoid potentially another 11-1 death.
The survivor of a multiple murders, a mother, is intent waiting for court issues. The bottom line, that is in and of itself is a duels of double standards in modern legal jurisprudence.