The Lindsay Clancy murder trial ended with 11 jurors prepared to reach one conclusion — and a single holdout unable to get past one central question.

Now, one of the jurors who voted to find Clancy not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility is offering new insight into what apparently troubled that lone dissenting juror during deliberations.

Paula Devlin, who served on the jury in Clancy’s closely watched Massachusetts trial, appeared on CBS Mornings and described the issue she says became particularly difficult for the holdout to reconcile.

According to Devlin, the juror struggled with the number of deliberate steps Clancy appeared capable of taking after the deaths of her three children — and whether those actions were consistent with someone experiencing the kind of psychosis described by the defense.

That question ultimately became part of a much larger disagreement that left the jury split 11-1 and resulted in a mistrial.

The Holdout Focused on What Clancy Did Afterward

Clancy has not denied that she fatally strangled her three children — 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan.

Afterward, she cut her wrists and jumped from a second-story window in what has been described as a suicide attempt.

The central issue at trial was therefore not whether Clancy committed the acts.

Instead, jurors were asked to decide whether she should be held criminally responsible for them.

Her defense argued that Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis and therefore lacked criminal responsibility at the time.

Eleven jurors ultimately agreed with that position.

One did not.

When CBS host Gayle King asked Devlin what the holdout juror could not “wrap his head around,” Devlin pointed to the sequence of actions Clancy took.

The holdout, she said, questioned how a person supposedly experiencing psychosis could perform multiple actions one after another and then go through the steps involved in attempting suicide.

Devlin summarized his concern as being about Clancy’s ability to act “one at a time” and then carry out everything that followed.

That apparent disconnect became one of the obstacles the jury could not overcome.

Eleven Jurors Reached One Conclusion

Devlin was among the 11 jurors who believed the appropriate verdict was not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.

The holdout instead favored a murder conviction.

Because the jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision, Judge William Sullivan ultimately declared a mistrial.

The 11-1 split has drawn intense attention since the trial ended, particularly as other jurors have begun publicly discussing what happened inside the deliberation room.

But Devlin’s latest comments offer a clearer look at one of the substantive concerns apparently driving the holdout’s position.

For him, the sequence of Clancy’s behavior appeared difficult to square with the defense’s explanation of her mental state.

For the other 11 jurors, however, the evidence led them in a different direction.

They believed Clancy’s mental condition meant she was not criminally responsible.

A Not-Guilty Verdict Would Not Necessarily Have Meant Freedom

One important distinction in the case is what a verdict of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility would actually have meant for Clancy.

It would not necessarily have resulted in her simply leaving custody and returning home.

Had she received that verdict, she could have been committed to a secure mental health facility through a potentially indefinite series of court orders.

That consequence appears to have mattered to Devlin when thinking about what justice should look like.

In her interview with King, she emphasized that the jurors who supported the lack-of-criminal-responsibility verdict had not forgotten Clancy’s children.

Devlin said Cora, Dawson and Callan remained constantly present in jurors’ minds throughout the process.

For her, finding Clancy not criminally responsible was not a way of pretending the children’s deaths did not matter.

She viewed it as a form of justice that also recognized what she believes happened to Clancy before the tragedy.

Devlin suggested that Clancy had become “lost in the system” and had been failed by it.

Defense Seeks a Not-Guilty Ruling After the Mistrial

The mistrial did not end the legal battle.

Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, has since filed a motion asking the court to find his client not guilty, relying in part on jurors’ comments following the trial.

That request creates another unusual chapter in a case already marked by an extraordinary jury split.

Interestingly, Devlin said she does not feel entirely comfortable with the defense’s post-trial motion, despite being one of the jurors who voted for a not-guilty-by-reason-of-lack-of-criminal-responsibility verdict.

Her concern appears tied to the particular meaning of that verdict.

For Devlin, the finding would have both acknowledged the deaths of the children and recognized Clancy’s need for psychiatric treatment.

Simply having the case resolved through another legal mechanism does not necessarily carry the same significance in her view.

What Does Justice Look Like Now?

Asked directly what she believes justice should mean in Clancy’s case, Devlin returned to the verdict she supported during deliberations.

She said she believes Clancy should be found not criminally responsible, receive the help she needs and that the case should contribute to greater public awareness surrounding postpartum conditions.

That remains one of the central divides surrounding the case.

The deaths of three young children are undisputed.

The question that divided the jury was how the law should evaluate their mother’s mental state at the moment they occurred.

Eleven people believed the evidence supported a finding that she lacked criminal responsibility.

One person could not make that leap.

And according to Devlin, a major reason was strikingly specific: the holdout could not reconcile an alleged psychotic state with Clancy’s apparent ability to complete a series of actions, including the steps leading up to her suicide attempt.

That disagreement was enough to prevent a verdict.

The Case Is Still Not Over

For now, Clancy’s legal future remains unresolved.

Prosecutors have not yet announced whether they intend to retry the case.

A follow-up court hearing is scheduled for Sept. 29.

Until then, the comments coming from jurors are providing the public with an increasingly detailed picture of how close the case came to ending differently.

The jury was not evenly divided.

It was not 6-6 or even 8-4.

It was 11-1.

Yet in a criminal trial requiring unanimity, that single disagreement was enough.

And Devlin’s account now reveals that behind the deadlock was a fundamental question about behavior, mental illness and criminal responsibility — one that 11 jurors believed the defense had answered, but one juror apparently could not get past.