Lindsay Clancy juror says panel saw case as chance to 'make it better for other women'

One of the 11 jurors who wanted to find Massachusetts mom Lindsay Clancy not criminally responsible for killing her three children said the panel viewed the case as a chance to make things "better for other women" and families — a thought process that one legal analyst is calling "problematic." "Even though we didn't know what was going on outside of our little bubble that we were in, we knew that this was a turning point, and this would be something that could change something to make it better for other women in the future, for other families," 65-year-old Clancy juror Paula Devlin told " CBS Saturday Morning " over the weekend.

"You know, justice for those children is this never happening again." According to Devlin, before the 11-1 deadlock that led to a mistrial , the jury had been split eight in favor of finding her not criminally responsible, two were undecided, and the holdout and one other juror were leaning toward a guilty verdict.

LONE HOLDOUT JUROR IN LINDSAY CLANCY TRIAL WAS ONLY BLACK PERSON ON THE JURY, PANELIST REVEALS: REPORT "Devlin’s statement is problematic," said Neama Rahmani, a Los Angeles-based trial attorney and legal analyst who has been following the case.

"Jurors are supposed to decide cases solely based on the facts of that case.

In the Clancy case, they were to decide whether she was criminally responsible." The jury's role is to apply the law, not to make law, he said.

ACCUSED NC KILLER MOM PLANS INSANITY DEFENSE — AS RETIRED JUDGE SAYS MORE MAY FOLLOW LINDSAY CLANCY STRATEGY "It is not appropriate for the jurors to consider the impact of their decision on other women, children or cases," he told Fox News Digital.

LINDSAY CLANCY MISTRIAL DECLARED AFTER JURY DEADLOCKS IN KILLINGS OF HER THREE CHILDREN There's not much that can be done, however, he said.

FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON X SIGN UP TO GET THE LATEST TRUE CRIME NEWS "Judge Sullivan already declared a mistrial and the law generally prohibits inquiry into juror deliberations," he said.

"There is an exception for outside influences that may prejudice the jury, but that would need an additional inquiry into whether the jurors considered information on traditional or social media or whether this was just Devlin’s interpretation of the importance of the case." Several jurors and Clancy's defense attorney Kevin Reddington have claimed that the holdout at the end didn't show his fellow jurors the evidence that he believed pointed toward guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

LINDSAY CLANCY LAWYER SAYS HE PLANS NEW MOTION TO DISMISS AFTER JURORS SPEAK OUT ON MISTRIAL: REPORT "If he had shown us some evidence, then we all would have been OK with that," Devlin told CBS.