Lindsay Clancy jury fail to reach a verdict again as questions are raised over meaning of mistrial
Warning: This article contains discussion of suicide and child loss which some readers may find distressing.
The Lindsay Clancy murder trial has taken another dramatic turn after her defence lawyer asked for a juror to be removed from the case, claiming they are refusing to follow the judge's instructions.
Naturally, the situation has raised questions over what'll happen if the 12-man group are unable to make a unanimous decision, and what it'll mean if Judge William Sullivan declares a mistrial.
The judge has already been informed twice by the jury that the panel have struggled to reach a verdict, and on Thursday (3 Sept), the foreperson reportedly voiced concerns about one juror's approach to the law on reasonable doubt.
Advert
Clancy's lawyer Kevin Reddington asked for the juror to be dismissed, but the judge rejected the request, saying he did not want to take sides in the jury's deliberations, resulting in the jurors being sent home after their sixth day of deliberations.
What is Lindsay Clancy accused of?
Clancy, 36, is accused by prosecutors of 'intentionally' killing her three children at their Massachusetts home in January 2023 before attempting to take her own life, which resulted in the former labour and delivery nurse being paralysed from the waist down.
Prosecutors allege Clancy strangled her five-year-old daughter Cora, three-year-old son Dawson and eight-month-old son Callan with a resistance band one by one, with Plymouth County Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham alleging she 'pulled until their little bodies were limp and lifeless'.
She does not dispute that she killed the trio, however, but instead argues she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis at the time and therefore should not be held criminally responsible for the deaths.
The trial has heard evidence that her mental health had deteriorated considerably in the months beforehand.
Clancy's mother told the court that her daughter had messaged her saying medication prescribed for anxiety was making things worse, while Clancy had also spoken about having thoughts of harming her children.
Her former husband, Patrick, has also supported her defence, maintaining that Clancy had been 'very depressed' before the killings, and that she experienced a significant deterioration in the month leading up to the deaths.
Patrick also backed his ex in a civil lawsuit against her former medical providers, which alleges they failed to properly diagnose and monitor her severe postpartum psychiatric condition.
What verdicts could the jury reach?
At its heart, the jury has to decide whether Clancy should be held criminally responsible for her children's deaths.
The prosecution's case is that she purposefully killed Cora, Dawson and Callan and understood what she was doing. If the jury agrees, Clancy could be found guilty of murder.
The precise degree of murder would determine her sentence, but a first-degree murder conviction carries life in prison without parole in Massachusetts.
The other major possibility is the one Clancy's defence has been fighting for: a finding that she was not criminally responsible because of mental illness.
Her lawyers argue that she was experiencing severe postpartum psychosis when she killed her children and was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions. That would not necessarily mean Clancy simply walks free, however.
A person found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility can be committed to a psychiatric facility and remain there if they are considered a danger to themselves or others.
So, despite all the attention on the possibility of a mistrial, the jury still has the power to bring this trial to an end - either by finding Clancy criminally responsible, or by accepting the defence's argument that her psychiatric state meant she was not.
What does 'mistrial' actually mean?
A mistrial essentially means a trial has ended without a verdict.
In this situation, the issue isn't that something has necessarily gone wrong with the trial itself. Rather, if the jury remains deadlocked and there is no realistic prospect of reaching the unanimous decision required - known as a 'hung jury' - Judge Sullivan could declare a mistrial.
And while that might sound like a dramatic conclusion, it is important to remember that a mistrial is not the same thing as an acquittal. Clancy would not be declared innocent, and the murder charges would not simply disappear.
Instead, the case could potentially start again.
Why is the jury so divided in this case?
While Clancy has admitted to the killings, the entire case has hinged on why she did it, and whether she can legally be held responsible.
During the trial, forensic psychologist Dr Kirk Heilbrun testified that Clancy experienced 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 painted a very different picture, arguing that although Clancy had serious mental health problems, she understood what she was doing and deliberately killed her children.
The cite the fact she sent Patrick away from their Duxbury property to run errands the day of the killings, after allegedly looking into how long it might take him to return.
That leaves the jury with an incredibly difficult question over criminal responsibility.
What happens if the judge declares a mistrial?
If the jury remains deadlocked, Judge Sullivan could formally declare a mistrial. From there, prosecutors would have a number of options.
They could decide to retry Clancy, meaning a new jury would hear the case and the evidence would essentially be presented again - but this second trial is certainly not automatic.
"Any time the threat of a retrial with murder one hanging over the client is re-interjected, defence lawyers will, at the very least, explore whether or not there's any interest in a resolution," he told Spectrum Local News.
That means a mistrial would not necessarily mean another six-week courtroom battle - although, a retrial remains a possibility.
Could the jury still reach a verdict?
Yes - just because we've observed some dramatic developments this week doesn't mean that a mistrial has yet been declared.
Judge Sullivan sent the jurors back to continue deliberating after questioning them about whether they could follow his legal instructions.
He also reminded them of the meaning of reasonable doubt.
Essentially, this is the notion that the prosecution must prove guilt to the required standard, rather than simply showing that guilt is more likely than not.
The defence's request to remove the alleged holdout juror was also rejected.
Rhianna Benson