Lindsay Clancy jurors felt that prosecutors in her triple-murder trial lacked “compassion” — and argued that the state even helped prove she was a caring mom who “snapped” when she killed her three young children.

Three jurors, including the foreperson, from Clancy’s high-profile case explained in an interview with NBC10 Boston that evidence and witnesses throughout the grueling 7-week trial “proved” that Clancy loved her kids.

“With everybody saying she loved her children so much and everything proved she loved her children, from our journals to, her mother in law, everything proved that she loved her children. So she had to have snapped,” the foreperson told the outlet.

One of the jurors told the outlet the “prosecution didn’t show enough compassion” toward Clancy, who claims she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was overprescribed a cocktail of psychiatric meds before strangling her kids.

“I just found it to be harsh — very, very harsh,” she said of the prosecution’s case.

“The fact that they had no character witnesses in regards to Lindsay being a bad mother … I found it to be biased.”

Meanwhile, the trio said they found Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, to be “entertaining,” “arrogant,” “compassionate” and “funny.”

“His compassion for Lindsay was amazing,” one of the women said.

In fact, the jurors told the outlet they were so impressed that if they needed representation, they would hire Reddington. 

Reddington asked the jury to find the 36-year-old former nurse not criminally responsible on the grounds she was in the throes of severe postpartum psychosis and heard a voice commanding her to strangle her three kids.

But the prosecution claimed she carefully planned the killings and made up hearing the voice and experiencing a psychotic break to avoid criminal culpability.

The three female jurors also detailed just how close the 12-person panel was to finding the killer mom not guilty by reason of insanity until one male holdout juror blocked the verdict. 

“He admitted he had reasonable doubt and I started filling out the forms, I was so excited,” the foreperson said. 

“There were three forms I had to fill out and I started filling them out, I wrote my signature on each one but then he said, ‘But I’m still not going to say she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.’”

One of the three, was named Paula and is a former government contractor. Another, Kelly, is a chef in Plymouth, and the foreperson, Ronnie, is a retired fifth grade special needs teacher.

Ronnie told NBC10 that managing the days-long deliberations was harder than dealing with her fifth grade students. 

The jurors called the holdout “arrogant” for refusing to interact with the other members — some of whom were nurses — and for refusing to consider their takes on the evidence in the case.

“He was very arrogant. He really did not take anything that anybody said,” one of the women claimed. 

Another said, “every one of us in the hours of our frustration would get up and walk the room because you just couldn’t sit anymore. And we would all go to the cart with the exhibits. He, I think, got up to the cart once very briefly and went back to his seat.”

“He would not interact with us and try to understand,” she continued. “We read to him, on numerous occasions, the definition of reasonable doubt from Judge [William] Sullivan’s instruction.”

“But he had the hardest time getting over the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children,” she explained.

Clancy was on trial for strangling her three children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8-months — at her Duxbury, Massachusetts home in January 2024. 

Judge William Sullivan ultimately declared a mistrial Friday after the jurors sent out its third note that they were deadlocked after over 38 hours of deliberation across seven days.