Lindsay Clancy Juror Claims Lone Holdout Mimicked Children's Strangulation With Exercise Band During Deliberations: 'I Was Shocked'
A juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial revealed the lone holdout wrapped an exercise band around a bottle of water.
Sept. 10 2026, Updated 11:24 a.m. ET
Another juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial has come forward to discuss frustrations with the lone holdout who derailed the deliberations, RadarOnline.com can report.
Nick Dargie, one of the three men on the 12-person jury, revealed that the juror who prevented a unanimous verdict left his fellow deliberators speechless when he picked up an exercise band that Clancy used to strangle her three young children to death and "mimicked" the murders.
'It's Not a Game of Clue'
Clancy admitted she used the exercise bands to strangle her three young children to death.
Clancy's case was declared a mistrial after 11 men and women reached a "not guilty" consensus, while the 12th juror refused to change his position, which favored conviction.
Tensions inside the jury room boiled over during the seven days jurors deliberated, especially after the holdout reportedly decided to reenact the gruesome killings.
"He took the exercise band out of the bag, grabbed an empty water bottle, and tied the band around the water bottle and pulled it," Dargie, who was juror number 10, told ABC News.
"I was so shocked," he continued. "It didn't make any sense to me. We're not here to play detective – it's not a game of Clue. This is serious."
Dargie said he asked the juror what he was doing and why, but got no answer.
Jurors Were Initially Split on a Verdict
Nick Dargie said he was 'shocked' at the behavior of the holdout juror.
Dargie admitted "several" jurors were initially leaning toward a guilty verdict, but the panel ultimately conceded they had too many questions and too much doubt to convict. Even the lone juror apparently had doubts about the case, according to Dargie, but voted to convict Clancy anyway.
"It was definitely frustrating," Dargie confessed. "Mainly when he explicitly said, 'I don't know if the prosecution or the defense proved their case."
The Holdout Juror Received Support and Understanding
The juror reportedly took the murder weapon out of the evidence bag, but did not explain his reasoning.
As prosecutors grapple with whether to retry Clancy, several panel members have stepped forward to share their experiences and opinions. One of the female jurors who spoke to CBS on the condition of anonymity defended the holdout and said he wasn’t entirely alone in his view.
"The stand-alone juror was not the only one that was unwilling to see things from the other side. So, I’m going to kind of defend that individual in a sense," the woman, identified only as juror number 5, said.
"There were some big personalities in that room. But at the end of the day, I feel like it just came down to an inability to kind of move past your convictions."
Lindsay Clancy's Lawyer Wants to Avoid Another Trial.
Never Miss an
Daily updates from the heart of Hollywood, right to your inbox
By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you’re agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Clancy's attorney will file a motion to dismiss the case.
At the end of the day the juror said there was just too much doubt to convict Clancy.
"The prosecution didn't have a figurative smoking gun," she reasoned. "There was not a single moment throughout the presentation of that case where you could say, 'Yup, 100% I’m certain she did it' or that she didn't do it. There was too much gray area."
Clancy's attorney is preparing to ask the judge to throw out the case entirely, rather than subject those involved to another lengthy trial. Kevin Reddington is set to present a motion to dismiss on Sept. 29, at his client's next scheduled status hearing.
"It will be a motion to dismiss based on what's called double jeopardy grounds, because there's no manifest necessity," Reddington told CBS Mornings. "You have to have a manifest necessity to declare a mistrial for obvious reasons – the invested time that the jurors put into it, the court, the staff, the defendant, the prosecution, everybody."
