Judge on Lindsay Clancy case says he intends to declare mistrial after jury fail to reach decision
The Lindsay Clancy murder trial looks like it'll be ending in a mistrial after jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict over whether the Massachusetts mother was criminally responsible for killing her three children.
The jury had been deliberating for several days before Judge William Sullivan announced his decision. However, the judge has granted a request from Clancy's defense to hold off on the official mistrial declaration for an hour, as her attorney says he wants to appeal the holdout juror to the Supreme Court.
It would bring an extraordinary trial to an end without a verdict, but it does not mean Clancy has been found not guilty. Instead, prosecutors will now have to decide what happens next.
Kevin Reddington, Clancy's lawyer, has asked Sullivan to hold off on the formal declaration of a mistrial. His request has now been has granted.
Advert
"I believe that this is a situation where there is a clear and present danger that this individual, for some reason..." Reddington said. "He is taking a position that's intractable regardless of proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
The judge said he'd give Reddington an hour before he will bring the jury back to allow him to 'petition the SGC for a stay of the declaration of a mistrial'.
Clancy, 36, did not dispute that she killed her three children, five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson and eight-month-old Callan, at the family's Duxbury home in January 2023.
She argued, however, that she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis at the time and should not be held criminally responsible for their deaths.
Her defence pointed to the deterioration in her mental health in the months before the killings, including messages to her mother about medication making her condition worse and thoughts of harming her children.
Forensic psychologist Dr Kirk Heilbrun also testified that Clancy experienced delusions and what he described as 'altruistic filicide', believing her children would suffer without her and that killing them would allow them to be together in heaven.
Prosecutors have argued that Clancy understood what she was doing and 'intentionally' killed her children, however.
They pointed to evidence including the fact that she sent her husband Patrick away from their property to run errands on the day of the killings, after allegedly looking into how long it might take him to return.
The jury's struggle to reach a decision became increasingly apparent during deliberations.
They told Judge Sullivan on two occasions that they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict, before a dramatic development saw the foreperson raise concerns about one juror's approach to the law on reasonable doubt.
Clancy's lawyer Kevin Reddington asked for that juror to be removed, claiming they were refusing to follow the judge's instructions. Judge Sullivan rejected the request, however, and sent the jury home after its sixth day of deliberations.
What does a mistrial mean for Lindsay Clancy?
A mistrial means the trial has ended without a verdict.
It is not an acquittal, meaning Clancy has not been found innocent and the murder charges have not simply disappeared.
Instead, prosecutors will have to weigh up whether to put her through another trial, potentially subjecting everyone involved to another lengthy and emotionally difficult courtroom process.
Arguably, the most obvious option would be a retrial, where Clancy would face a new jury, and the case would effectively begin again.
This is not automatic, however. Prosecutors could instead explore a potential plea agreement with Clancy's defence team, or decide not to retry the case.
But for now, there is no verdict in the case, and Clancy remains accused of the three murders, despite the mistrial.
Rhianna Benson