Plymouth, Massachusetts - Several jurors from Lindsay Clancy's closely watched murder trial have shed light on what went down during the tense deliberations that ultimately resulted in a mistrial.

Three women who served on the jury, including the jury's foreperson, sat down with NBC10 Boston for an interview less than a week after the mistrial declaration.

Roni Carlson, the foreperson, shared new details about the lone holdout juror who refused to vote in favor of a not-guilty verdict, despite having "reasonable doubt" about the prosecution's argument.

"He admitted he had reasonable doubt, and I started filling out the forms. I was so excited," Carlson said.

World Albania's "Flamingo Revolution" protests over Trump family's luxury resort project reach 100th day

But then, the holdout revealed, "I'm still not going to say that she's not guilty by reason of insanity."

Another juror, Kellie Farina, said that she and the other jurors had repeated the definition of reasonable doubt, as provided by the judge, to the holdout juror – but he would not budge.

"He was very arrogant. He really did not take anything that anybody said," juror Paula Devlin added.

Speculation about the holdout juror emerged during deliberations, as Judge William Sullivan repeated the definition of reasonable doubt in the courtroom after the foreperson singled out a juror who "refuses to listen to the law."

In an interview with WBZ-TV's Kristina Rex, another juror, who chose to remain anonymous, similarly said "there was so much doubt" in the jury room.

"The prosecution didn't have a figurative smoking gun. 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."

After hearing these comments from the jurors, Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, has announced that he will request that the case be thrown out.

"It will be a motion to dismiss based on what's called double jeopardy grounds, because there's no – the term is manifest necessity," Reddington told CBS Mornings on Wednesday.

"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."

Reddington said that he will make this request at the status hearing scheduled for September 29 in the hopes of avoiding another trial.

Strange Things Sasquatch alert in small Maine town as police launch hunt for mysterious "Bigfoot" in a hat

He further addressed the revelations about the holdout juror, emphasizing that while he would "defend" the juror's right to go against the majority, it has been made clear that he violated the law.

"When the forelady indicated clearly and unequivocally in the jury question that this person had doubt – reasonable doubt, as we know now – and just refused to listen to the judge's instructions on the law, that's when I was upset," Reddington said.

Clancy was on trial for the murders of her three children. She has admitted to the killings, but Reddington and her defense team instead argued that she is not criminally responsible for the act due to extreme postpartum psychosis.

Because of the hung jury, Judge Sullivan declared a mistrial last Friday. This means that the case essentially starts over, with Clancy facing the possibility of a retrial.

Along with pushing for the case to be thrown out, Reddington signalled a willingness to negotiate a plea deal with the prosecution, which could see the charges against Clancy reduced.

Reddington acknowledged Wednesday that the decision is ultimately up to District Attorney Tim Cruz, but said, "All I know is that I'm never gonna agree that this young lady do a day in jail."