The lone juror whose vote resulted in a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy murder case says statements made about him by other jurors are not accurate.
The juror, identified as Michael, spoke Tuesday in an interview with Ray Marcel on the streaming series “Fugitive TV.” Michael said he decided to speak after other jurors made claims about him last week.
Jury foreperson Roni Carlson told NBC 10 Boston that Michael “admitted he had reasonable doubt” but allegedly refused to engage with the other jurors as to why. Carlson also believed he was not properly applying the judge’s instructions on reasonable doubt and sent a note to the judge raising her concerns.
Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, asked the judge to remove Michael from the jury, arguing he was not following the law regarding reasonable doubt. The judge denied the request and deliberations continued.
Defendant Lindsay Clancy watches jurors enter the courtroom during her murder trial on Friday, Sept. 4, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
Marcel told NewsNation’s Chris Cuomo on Wednesday that Michael believed Clancy was guilty from the beginning of the trial.
“He felt that she was sane when she did it. And that’s exactly what he told me,” Marcel recalled. “He said, from day one, that he always felt that she was guilty, and he never displayed or said anything about reasonable doubt.”
This differs from what other jurors said about Michael not following the law during nearly 40 hours of deliberations.
Other jurors also alleged that Michael was dismissive of their arguments. However, Michael told Marcel deliberations were contentious from the start.
“He said things got heated in the jury room,” Marcel said. “Jurors were not agreeing, some agreeing, some not agreeing…. What he told me was, from day one, they voted every single day.”
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington makes an argument to remove one juror from deliberations during Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial on Friday, Sept. 4, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
Michael said that on the first day of deliberations, eight jurors believed Clancy was not guilty by reason of insanity. By the end, only Michael and one other juror still believed she was guilty.
“And then, he said, at the last moment, that other juror decided to go not guilty, and he just stood his ground… “He felt that she was sane by the preparation she did,” Marcel explained. “The preparation showed that she was sane and knew what she was doing, pretty much knew right from wrong, before she did what she did.”
Marcel said the public reaction after the trial, including revealing Michael as the holdout juror, was unreasonable.
“No matter if you agree with him or not… his name shouldn’t have been put out there like that,” he told Cuomo. “No juror should be put to the forefront like that, because it’s their civic duty to do that, and they should be protected… He never asked for any of this whatsoever.”
