The Lindsay Clancy murder trial appeared to be heading toward a mistrial Thursday as the jury remained deadlocked after six days of deliberations, and a question raised by the panel prompted the defense to call for one of the jurors to be dismissed.
The jury on Wednesday handed Massachusetts Superior Court Judge William Sullivan its second deadlock notice, alerting the court that the nine women and three men could not reach a unanimous decision on Clancy’s fate. The first deadlock note came Tuesday morning.
On Thursday, the jury submitted a question to Sullivan following its lunch break.
Sullivan did not read the note to the courtroom, but it appears that it may have been in regard to reasonable doubt. He instead repeated his instructions on the definition of reasonable doubt.
“A charge is proved beyond a doubt if, after you’ve compared and considered all of the evidence, you have in your minds an abiding conviction to a moral certainty that the charge is true,” Sullivan said.
The jury was then sent back for more deliberations.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington addressed the court after the jury left, alleging that one juror “refuses to listen to the law that you have given him or her on reasonable doubt.” He suggested that the “soft” instructions from Sullivan were not sufficient.
Reddington called for the removal of the juror.
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague then spoke, arguing there was “no way to determine what the deliberations are.” She felt the judge’s actions in response to the note were appropriate.
Sullivan declined to remove a juror.
“I don’t feel that it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations. I don’t feel it’s appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or the 11,” Sullivan said.
He added that each juror was brought in individually and asked whether they could follow his instructions.
“They’ve said at this point that they can,” Sullivan said. “That was specifically addressed towards the specific question, and that’s what I’m doing.”
The jury instructions were given following a sidebar between Sullivan and the attorneys, which apparently upset Reddington.
It’s unclear what was said, but the defense attorney seemed animated and waved papers aggressively during the discussion, according to two members of the NBC News team in court. Reddington then walked over to Clancy and wheeled her over to be included in the sidebar conversation.
Clancy appeared upset during the sidebar but returned to the defense table with a stoic expression.
Following about 30 more minutes of deliberations, the jury was dismissed for the day shortly after 4 p.m.
Sullivan can send the jury back to deliberate only twice before he is able to declare a mistrial, unless the jury consents to more days of deliberations.
After the second deadlock note, the judge gave jurors Tuey-Rodriguez instructions, which essentially ask them to give deliberations one last chance and tells them that it’s “desirable” they reach a verdict.
If they return with a third deadlock note, Sullivan will likely declare a mistrial.
If that were the case, Reddington has said he is ready to go for a second trial. On Thursday morning, he told reporters gathered outside court in Plymouth that he would be ready as early as next week.
On Thursday afternoon, however, he clarified that he did not want a mistrial as he was questioned by reporters.
“Why would I want a mistrial? I kicked the s--- out of their case,” Reddington said.
He added that the judge would have an inquiry about the lone holdout Friday morning but was unsure of the details. Reddington advocated for the attorneys to discuss the inquiry in open court.
“I want the public to know what’s going on,” he said.
Prosecutors have not indicated whether they, too, will be ready for a new trial that soon, or whether they want to retry the case at all.
The jury must decide whether Clancy is criminally responsible in the killing of her three children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months — on Jan. 24, 2023, before she threw herself out of her bedroom window in a suicide attempt that left her paralyzed from the waist down.
Reddington has argued that Clancy was in the throes of postpartum psychosis at the time the children were killed, and she was compelled to act on auditory hallucinations commanding her to carry out the killings.
Prosecutors, however, insist that Clancy was not in a state of psychosis when she strangled the children with exercise bands, and argued that she planned the killings ahead of time, sending her then-husband out for errands when she wanted to carry out the attacks.
While the prosecution has sought a first-degree murder conviction, which would carry a life sentence, the jury can also convict Clancy of lesser charges — second-degree murder or manslaughter — or deem her not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility.
