A jury in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial remained deadlocked after six days of deliberations, court filings and courtroom exchanges show.
The panel, comprised of nine women and three men, submitted a second deadlock note to Massachusetts Superior Court Judge William Sullivan, who responded by repeating his instructions on the legal definition of reasonable doubt.
Sullivan told jurors that a charge is proved beyond a doubt if they have an abiding conviction to a moral certainty after considering all the evidence. He then sent the panel back to continue deliberations.
After the jury left, defense attorney Kevin Reddington accused one juror of refusing to follow the judge's law on reasonable doubt and asked Sullivan to remove that juror. Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague countered that there is no way to determine the substance of deliberations.
Judge Sullivan declined to remove the juror, saying he would not take sides in deliberations and that each juror had been questioned individually about following his instructions. He said the jurors had affirmed they could do so.
The defense appeared upset after a sidebar between the judge and attorneys. Reporters in court described Reddington as animated and said he later approached Clancy to include her in the side discussion. Clancy showed visible distress during the exchange and returned to the defense table with a restrained expression.
Sullivan has statutory limits on declaring a mistrial. He may send jurors back to deliberate only twice before he can declare a mistrial unless the jury agrees to more days. After the second deadlock note, the judge gave jurors Tuey-Rodriguez instructions urging them to give deliberations one last chance and noting it was desirable they reach a verdict.
Reddington said he expected an inquiry about a lone holdout juror the following morning and asked that the matter be addressed in open court. Outside the courtroom, he told reporters he felt he had severely challenged the prosecution's case, a remark he later repeated more bluntly to journalists.
Charges Background And Potential Outcomes
The jury must decide whether Clancy is criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children, Cora aged five, Dawson aged three, and Callan aged eight months, events the prosecution says occurred on January 24, 2023.
Prosecutors allege Clancy strangled the children with exercise bands and planned the killings, sending her then-husband out on errands. They seek a first-degree murder conviction, which carries a life sentence.
Reddington has argued Clancy was in the throes of postpartum psychosis and compelled by auditory hallucinations to carry out the killings. He contends she was not criminally responsible at the time.
The jury may convict on first-degree murder, lesser charges such as second-degree murder or manslaughter, or find Clancy not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility. If jurors return a third deadlock note, Sullivan will likely declare a mistrial, and the defense has indicated readiness for a retrial.
