The highly controversial case of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother who admitted to killing her three young children, appeared to be nearing a conclusion — until an unexpected disagreement inside the jury room changed the outcome completely. Three female jurors who served in Clancy’s trial have now spoken publicly about their decision to find her not guilty of murder before one remaining juror refused to agree, ultimately leading the judge to declare a mistrial.

Clancy, 36, had admitted in court that she strangled her children using exercise bands. However, her defense argued that she was not mentally responsible at the time of the killings because she was suffering from severe postpartum depression and psychosis. Her attorneys claimed that the combination of medications she had been prescribed contributed to her altered mental state and affected her ability to understand right from wrong.

The central question for the jury was not whether Clancy caused the deaths of her children. That fact was already acknowledged. Instead, jurors had to determine whether she understood the difference between right and wrong when the crimes occurred, which would decide whether she was legally responsible for murder or whether she should be found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Jury foreperson Roni Carlson explained to NBC Boston that the jurors were focused on Clancy’s mental state rather than whether she committed the acts.

“We weren’t trying to figure out if she murdered the children, she did and she’s admitting to that. We’re trying to figure out: Did she know right from wrong at that time?” Carlson said.

According to Carlson, much of the evidence presented during the trial showed that Clancy had a deep love for her children before the tragedy. She pointed to materials including Clancy’s personal journals and statements from family members as evidence that the mother had cared deeply for her children.

“With everybody saying she loved her children so much and everything proved she loved her children, from her journals to her mother-in-law, everything proved that she loved her children,” Carlson said. “So she had to have snapped.”

Based on the evidence they reviewed, 11 of the 12 jurors were prepared to find Clancy not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. However, one juror refused to join the majority decision, preventing the jury from reaching a unanimous verdict.

The disagreement resulted in a mistrial being declared by Judge William Sullivan at Plymouth Superior Court.

The jury, made up of nine women and three men, had spent more than 37 hours deliberating after hearing five and a half weeks of testimony and evidence. They were tasked with deciding whether Clancy was guilty of the murders or whether her mental health condition affected her criminal responsibility.

The three female jurors who later spoke with NBC Boston expressed frustration with the unidentified juror who would not agree to acquit Clancy. They claimed that the juror was unwilling to engage in further discussion or attempt to understand the perspective of the other members of the panel.

“He had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt,” Carlson said.

She recalled that she believed the jury was close to completing the necessary paperwork when the disagreement continued.

“I started filling out the forms, I was so excited. There were three forms I had to fill out, and then he said, ‘But I’m still not going to say she’s not guilty,’” Carlson explained.

Because the jury could not reach a unanimous decision, Clancy now faces the possibility of a retrial. The case involves the deaths of her three children: Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and eight-month-old Callan, who died in January 2023.

After the mistrial was announced, Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington attempted to prevent another trial from moving forward. He requested an emergency order seeking another round of jury deliberations, but the request was unsuccessful. Judge Sullivan ultimately declared the mistrial on Friday afternoon.

Reddington has also publicly appealed for help, asking President Donald Trump to consider granting Clancy a pardon. During an appearance on Good Morning America, the attorney described Clancy as a good person who had endured an extremely difficult situation.

“Mr President, I hope that you would consider this young lady, the type of person she is, what she’s been through, and consider a pardon,” Reddington said.

The attorney described Clancy as intelligent and hardworking, while also discussing the strong connection he developed with her during the legal proceedings. He said he had not fully understood postpartum depression before becoming involved in the case but gained a deeper understanding while defending Clancy.

“I do feel a very strong bond with Lindsay because of the type of person she is. She’s such a wonderful, wonderful person,” Reddington said.

Throughout the trial, Clancy’s defense maintained that she had been overwhelmed by postpartum depression and that the medications she received contributed to a psychotic episode. Prosecutors, however, presented the case to the jury as a question of criminal responsibility for the deaths of her children.

The mistrial means the legal battle surrounding Lindsay Clancy is not over. A case that had seemed close to a final decision was unexpectedly halted because one juror could not agree with the other 11 members of the panel. The future of the case now depends on whether prosecutors pursue a retrial and how the next stage of the proceedings unfolds.