Lindsay Clancy’s Foreperson Signed Three Verdict Forms That Were Never Delivered

Tony Brueski (0:01)

This is HiddenKillers With Tony Brueski.

Tony Brueski (0:11)

So what happened in that jury room? What exactly happened in that jury room? More jurors are speaking every single day. We're going to pick it up where we're at as of this recording. And I'm sure there'll be more observations that we'll make here. But let's start with what we got. Ronnie Carlson thought it was over. Carlson was the four person in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. Now the jury, nine women, three men, seven weeks of testimony, more than 80 witnesses, about 38 hours of deliberation over seven days at Plymouth County Court. The one juror who had been holding out told the room he had reasonable doubt. Which one would think in a case where you're following the law, reasonable doubt means you can't convict, because that's the actual law, that's what the jury instructions are. Carlson pulled out the verdict forms, three of them, one for each child. She started filling them in, signed all three, and then he told her he still wasn't going to say Lindsay Clancy was not guilty by reason of insanity. Her signature was on the page. The holdout had just conceded the legal standard for acquittal was met. And he took it back in the same breath, allegedly.

Carlson described that moment in a post trial interview, and it captures what broke inside that jury room. The instructions Judge William Sullivan read, that jury didn't just fail to prevent the deadlock. They may have guaranteed it. And if Plymouth County DA Timothy Cruz retries this case, a new jury gets the same ones. Five jurors have spoken publicly since the mistrial, at least as of this recording. Four, by name, one anonymously. There's more all the time. The holdout has not as of yet. Everything we know about his reasoning comes from the people who spent seven days trying to change his mind. Carlson, a retired elementary school teacher, gave the most detailed account. She said the holdout admitted he had reasonable doubt. She said she pulled out the verdict forms, filled them in and signed all three. But then he reversed, told her he still wouldn't sign. Kelly Farina, a senior center chef on the panel, described the holdout from a different angle. He went to interact with the group. Other jurors, including nurses on the panel, walked him through the medication evidence and the toxology reports. He questioned the findings even after the group reviewed them together. You know, one of those people who like to deny facts.

And we're like, well, everybody's got opinions. Some people are just fucking idiots, too. We don't really have a lever to pull when we recognize that. It's just, well, let's try and deal with them.

They read him the written definition of reasonable doubt from Sullivan's instructions more than once. At one point, Farina said the holdout asked the group to have the judge come in and re-read it, even though the panel had a copy sitting in front of them. Paula Devlin, the third juror who spoke publicly, called the holdout arrogant. She said he completely disregarded information that nurses on the jury provided to help interpret the medical records. Deliberations were so heated at points that the six alternates seated elsewhere in the courthouse could hear them through the walls. The last to come forward was Nick Dargie, a 25-year-old military veteran who was stationed overseas when the killings happened and came into the trial knowing nothing about the case. Dargie said the holdout couldn't point to a single piece of evidence or any witness testimony to explain his position. He said the holdout scrolled through his phone while other jurors talked to him.

There's a pellet issue.

There's a reason to really throw this whole goddamn thing out.

Why the hell did he have his phone back there? And he was able to be scrolling through it. Judge? Judge, who needed to... Oh, you're asking us to come in on a Saturday? You're asking us to come in after the Labor Day weekend? Yeah, Judge, we are.

Because you're not really taking control of your courtroom or the juror who's blatantly disregarding your instructions or the rules of being a juror.

And he described the holdout pulling an exercise band from the evidence bag, tying it around an empty water bottle and pulling it tight. An apparent reenactment. Dargie called disgusting. Dargie said the holdout told the room he didn't know whether the prosecution or the defense had proved their case. The instruction said the defense didn't have to.

You know, part of being a juror is don't look at social media. Don't read the news on this case. Don't discuss this with other people. I find it rather coincidental that there was a social media influencer out there in True Crime that made that exact example, putting exercise band around bottles, liquor bottles specifically, and posting it. Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with doing that as a creator. Maybe a bit distasteful, but that's in the eye of the beholder. But I do find it a little coincidental that the juror reenacted that exact example in the jury room and have never had been on social media getting influenced by it, by outside sources, by discussing the case with others, or taking in information from outside sources. The very thing you're not allowed to do. But it's very odd that he's reenacting some of those things right there in the courtroom. It was just his idea, just came to him. Judging by his blatant disregard for the rules from what we understand right now, do you think he really regarded the rules of not going on social media, not reading about the case, not digging into his position that he seemed to already have going into this case?