After Friday’s mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case, three jurors have come forward revealing how they saw the outcome — and their perspective is just as bad as you would imagine.
Clancy was on trial for the deaths of her three children in January 2023. Her defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, argued she should not be held criminally responsible due to postpartum depression and psychosis. A mistrial was declared after one juror held out against the rest, refusing to retreat from the charges against her.
Now, we’re hearing from three women who saw it differently and gave an interview to WBTS — Paula Devlin, Roni Carlson, and Kellie Farina.
Their comments showed they were completely clueless and favored Clancy for reasons that had nothing to do with the law.
WBTS posted the interview to YouTube on Tuesday. Farina called the prosecution’s opening statement “harsh,” and said she did not like that they did not present character witnesses for Clancy. “You’re presenting all these medical professionals, but nobody’s presenting for the prosecution, a woman, a mother of three children.”
“I found it to be biased right out of the gate.”
[embedded content]
Should Lindsay Clancy have been convicted of murder?
Yes: 99% (77 Votes)
No: 1% (1 Votes)
Why would the prosecution need to talk about her character?
Reddington admitted she killed three children. Would talking about her role as a mother before killing three children completely excuse that completely evil act?
What does “bias” have to do with anything? They are the prosecution. They are trying to prove she murdered her children.
“There is no compassion in this courtroom right now,” Farina recalled, apparently forgetting that compassion was not shown to the children Clancy killed.
When Devlin was asked if the prosecution said anything she considered in her decision, she gave a blunt “no.”
On the other side, all three women could not stop swooning over Reddington. It was not because of the legality of his defense. They just seemed to like him.
Female Clancy jurors gush over defense attorney Kevin Reddington as “funny” and “entertaining.”
“His compassion towards Lindsay was amazing.”
The prosecution had roughly zero chance with these women. pic.twitter.com/XRSnv5wvDS
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) September 8, 2026
Carlson recalled laughing at Reddington, saying his demeanor was “funny,” adding that “he was entertaining, which was good because we needed some of that.”
Devlin noted he was both “arrogant and entertaining,” before Farina added “but compassionate,” to which Devlin agreed.
“His compassion toward Lindsay was amazing,” she added.
Again, none of this should have anything to do with a murder trial and the facts presented.
It is clear these women went off of their emotions and were ready to let a child killer go free.
All three of them should be embarrassed to admit these things.
It is further proof that the one holdout juror was possibly the only sane voice during deliberations.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
