Lindsay Clancy juror had reasonable doubt but would not agree to acquit, foreperson says
Roni Carlson, in wake of mistrial, says holdout juror could not be persuaded while colleague calls him ‘very arrogant’ A lone juror in the trial of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother accused of the murder of her three children, would not agree to acquit Clancy despite expressing reasonable doubt about whether she was guilty, the jury’s foreperson said in an interview airing Monday. Speaking…
In the trial of Lindsay Clancy, accused of the murder of her three children, a jury mistrial concluded with one holdout juror, Roni Carlson, who expressed reasonable doubt about Clancy's guilt but refused to acquit her. Carlson, the jury's foreperson, revealed that the holdout juror found Clancy "very arrogant," making it impossible for them to reach a unanimous decision. The mistrial leaves the case open for further proceedings, and resources for maternal health support are provided in the US, UK, and Australia.
Brief written by urgent.news from The Guardian US's own syndicated text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
