Lindsay Clancy jurors on holdout juror: ‘He was very arrogant’

The holdout juror in Lindsay Clancy's murder trial was an "arrogant" man who disregarded evidence and said that although he had reasonable doubt, he would never return a not guilty verdict, according to three jurors who presided on the case that gripped the nation.

The jurors, including the foreperson, shared more about the behind-the-scenes deliberations over whether Clancy should be held criminally liable for strangling her three children. They spoke out in an exclusive interview with NBC10 Boston, posted on Tuesday, Sept. 8.

"He was very arrogant," said Paula Devlin, who works for a defense contractor.

Roni Carlson, a former elementary school teacher and the jury foreperson, said that the holdout "admitted he had reasonable doubt."

"I started filling out the forms, I was so excited," she said. "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.'"

Kellie Farina, a chef and another juror on the case, said that the holdout "had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsey viciously killed her children.""We read to him on numerous occasions the definition of reasonable doubt from Judge (William) Sullivan's instruction," Farina said.

Original source: https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/