Lindsay Clancy Jury Reportedly Split 11-1 as Defense Pushes to Avoid Mistrial

Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial entered another dramatic turn Thursday after her defense attorney said the jury appeared to be divided 11-1 — with one juror allegedly refusing to follow the judge’s instructions.

 

After six days of deliberations without a verdict, attorney Kevin Reddington told reporters outside the courthouse that he does not want the case to end in a mistrial.

“There’s a person who has doubt but will not listen to the judge’s instruction,” Reddington said Thursday. “I don’t want a mistrial. Why would I want a mistrial? I kicked the s–t out of their case.”

Reddington did not disclose how the 11 jurors he referenced intended to vote. He said, however, that the juror who is allegedly preventing the panel from reaching a unanimous decision has been identified.

The issue is expected to be examined in court Friday morning.

The latest development came after another tense day inside Plymouth Superior Court, where jurors have now spent nearly 30 hours considering the evidence against Clancy.

Earlier Thursday, Judge William Sullivan sent the jurors back to deliberate after receiving a note from the foreperson indicating that one member of the panel “refuses to listen to the law.”

The note prompted an extended discussion between the judge and attorneys before the jury was instructed to continue deliberating.

Clancy, 36, is facing three murder charges in connection with the January 2023 deaths of her children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months.

 

Clancy does not dispute that she killed the children inside the family’s Duxbury, Mass., home. Afterward, she cut her wrists and jumped from a second-story window, surviving the fall with severe injuries.

The central dispute at trial has instead been whether she was legally responsible for her actions.

Clancy has pleaded not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. Her defense has argued that she was experiencing postpartum psychosis and was suffering from the effects of psychiatric medication when she killed her children.

Reddington has repeatedly argued that Clancy sought medical help before the killings but that her mental-health treatment failed to prevent her condition from deteriorating.

Prosecutors have offered a sharply different account.

Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague has argued that Clancy was depressed and overwhelmed but remained capable of understanding what she was doing.

During closing arguments, Sprague told jurors that Clancy had reached a point where she “didn’t want to try anymore.”

“Those kids were her protective factor,” Sprague said. “Those kids were keeping her from ending her misery. So she had to remove the protective factor.”

Prosecutors maintain that the killings were deliberate and that Clancy was not experiencing a psychotic episode that eliminated her criminal responsibility.

The jury has already twice reported that it was deadlocked.

On Wednesday, Sullivan issued a Tuey-Rodriguez instruction, commonly referred to as a “dynamite charge,” urging jurors to reconsider their positions and continue attempting to reach a unanimous verdict.

The instruction came after the jury had already spent more than 20 hours deliberating.

Under Massachusetts law, the possibility of a mistrial becomes increasingly significant when jurors remain unable to reach a unanimous verdict after the judge has given the special instruction.

For now, however, the case remains in the hands of the jury.

The 12 jurors are scheduled to return Friday morning, when the court is expected to address the dispute surrounding the allegedly holdout juror.

If the panel ultimately reaches a unanimous verdict, it could resolve one of Massachusetts’ most closely watched criminal cases in recent years.

If it cannot, Judge Sullivan could declare a mistrial, potentially opening the door for prosecutors to decide whether to pursue a new trial.

For Clancy and her defense team, the immediate goal appears clear: keep the jury together long enough to reach a verdict rather than see the case start over.