Highlights from today in court
• Tensions flare: A dramatic series of developments this afternoon included a new note from the jury, each juror separately approaching the bench for a brief interaction with Judge William Sullivan, and the judge having an animated sidebar with Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington. The two men leaned in towards one another, gestured wildly, and exchanged what appeared to be tense words. And after Reddington wheeled Clancy up to the bench, the judge spoke directly with her. At one point, she turned to look back at Reddington, and he walked up behind her, rubbed her shoulder as she leaned back into him.
• Clancy “has faith”: The former labor and delivery nurse is “heartened” after court recessed for the day, her defense attorney said. “She has faith in this jury,” he added.
• Zeroing in on juror: After the judge ordered the jury to resume deliberations, Reddington said one member was refusing to “listen to the law.” He asked that the person be removed from the jury. However, analysts believe the lone juror is unlikely to be removed.
• Tomorrow’s agenda: Following nearly six weeks of trial proceedings in the Clancy trial, the deadlocked jury will return Friday at 9 a.m. to continue a seventh day of deliberations.
• Possible next steps: If the jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict Friday, then the judge could order a mistrial. Prosecutors could indicate in court that they intend to retry the case, but they don’t have to decide on the spot. In the interim, Clancy would be returned to Tewksbury Hospital in Massachusetts, where she’ll continue being held without bail. If there is a second trial, a new jury would be selected and the judge could schedule it to begin quickly. When asked about a second trial this morning, Reddington told reporters, “Bring it.”
• About the case: The Massachusetts mother is accused of murder after strangling her three young children in 2023. Now paralyzed from a suicide attempt, the 36-year-old has pleaded not guilty to three counts of murder. Prosecutors have argued Clancy acted “intentionally, rationally, and swiftly” to kill her children, while the defense said she should not be held criminally responsible because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.
Our live coverage of Thursday’s news from the Lindsay Clancy trial has concluded. Scroll through the posts below for more on what happened today in court during deliberations.
Judge’s expected move to question lone juror tomorrow is rare, analyst says
According to Lindsay Clancy’s attorney, Judge William Sullivan is expected to question a lone juror tomorrow morning. Kevin Reddington had accused the juror of disregarding the law during deliberations.
Criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor Mark O’Mara told CNN’s Erin Burnett that such a move is rare.
CNN’s Amanda Musa contributed reporting.
Tense words, thrown papers and jurors questioned: Inside the courtroom as tensions flared
When Lindsay Clancy’s jury sent another note to the judge Thursday afternoon, more than 24 hours after they last reported being at a standstill, the entire courtroom was on edge.
Members of the public, who had spent hours waiting restlessly for a seat in the gallery, craned their necks to look around the room, whispering to one another. Clancy — accused of murdering her three young children during what she says was an episode of postpartum psychosis — sat silently at the defense table with her attorney, staring straight ahead.
When Judge William Sullivan entered, he immediately called the two prosecutors and Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, to the bench, where the rest of the courtroom couldn’t hear their discussions.
CNN's Jean Casarez breaks down the tension in the courtroom as the deadlocked jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial ended its sixth day of deliberations without a verdict. Clancy's defense claims there is "one juror who refuses to listen to the law."
Reporters and spectators could not hear their conversation, which was masked by the roar of white noise pumped into the courtroom to ensure privacy — though Reddington at one point raised his voice to a volume faintly audible over the drone.
Reddington slammed his hand down on a stack of papers on the judge’s bench. Later, he threw the papers onto the judge’s bench and stalked back to the defense table.
Clancy leaned back into Reddington, and he rubbed her shoulder as one of the jurors tasked with deciding her fate walked up the bench and was sworn in, an arm’s length from the defendant.
The female juror nodded as the judge briefly spoke to her and then quickly exited the courtroom. The court repeated the process with each of the 11 other deliberating jurors, with the judge questioning them one-by-one — each standing directly in front of Clancy to speak with Sullivan before leaving the room.
Once he finished the questioning, Sullivan took a long drink of water.
The courtroom was silent as the entire jury walked in together soon after, keeping their eyes trained directly ahead. Sullivan read the panel further instructions about following the law regarding reasonable doubt, prompting exasperated sighs from people in the gallery who were likely expecting a verdict — or a mistrial after three days of stalled deliberations.
One female juror nodded slightly at the judge’s instructions and, at one point, glanced at another woman next to her. The jury foreperson — a short woman with graying hair and glasses — nodded as Sullivan concluded his instructions and told the jury once again to continue their deliberations.
Sullivan said he asked each juror individually if they could follow his instructions on the law.
Defense attorney Reddington — who believes the 11-1 split favors his client — objected to the judge’s re-reading of the instructions, requested further questioning of the jurors and asked that the holdout juror be removed.
Prosecutors, however, argued there was no way to determine who was correct or incorrect on the law. Ultimately, Sullivan said he felt it was improper to side with one side or the other.
The deadlocked jury, which has deliberated for about 36.5 hours so far, left the courthouse less than an hour later without reaching a verdict. They are expected to resume their deliberations for a seventh day Friday morning.
"I've never seen anything like this," CNN correspondent says
CNN correspondent Jean Casarez told Anderson Cooper that in all of the trials she has covered, she has “never seen anything like this,” referring to Lindsay Clancy’s attorney Kevin Reddington accusing one member of the jury of refusing to follow the law.
Casarez added that to remove the lone juror, the jury would have to start their deliberations from scratch.
If there’s a mistrial, the trial would effectively be over, and Clancy would be a free woman, Casarez said. However, Clancy is currently in a state psychiatric facility, and prosecutors would likely seek to keep her in custody.
What happens next if Lindsay Clancy’s trial ends in a mistrial
If the jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict in its seventh day of deliberations in Lindsay Clancy’s triple-murder trial, the judge could order a mistrial as soon as tomorrow. So, what happens then?
Prosecutors could indicate in court that they intend to retry the case, but they don’t have to make a decision on the spot.
“If the (district attorney) has already thought about it and decided they want to go forward with it and they want to come out and say that, they can. If they want to decide at a later time, they can do that too,” Boston defense attorney Elyse Hershon told CNN.
In the interim, Clancy would be returned to Tewksbury Hospital in Massachusetts, where she’ll continue being held without bail on her murder charges.
Ultimately, the decision to pursue another trial is up to Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz, a longtime Democratic prosecutor whose office runs an advocacy center that serves child abuse victims.
Clancy is currently charged with three counts of first-degree murder. In Massachusetts, the most severe murder charge requires a jury trial. The district attorney could offer the defense an opportunity to plead guilty to a lesser charge.
If the district attorney opted to downgrade charges against Clancy, the parties could potentially come to a plea agreement to avoid a second trial. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington has told reporters it’s up to the district attorney to initiate those conversations.
Oftentimes prosecutors will ask the victims’ family for their perspective. In this case, because the families of the victims and the defendant are intertwined, competing interests may interfere with consensus.
Attorneys from either side could file motions in the interim – one might make a strategic request to move the case to another jurisdiction in the state, arguing they can’t get a fair trial in Plymouth County.
If there is a second trial, a new jury would be selected and the judge could schedule it to begin quickly – as soon as the parties could conceivably schedule witnesses.
When asked again about a second trial Thursday morning, Reddington told reporters, “Bring it.”
The defense attorney said he could be ready to retry the case next week, but suggested prosecutors would aim to push it off six months to a year.
Judge in the Lindsay Clancy trial is "in a very, very difficult position," analysts say
The judge in the triple-murder trial of Lindsay Clancy is “in a very, very difficult position,” after jurors completed a sixth day of deliberations without a verdict, according to senior trial attorney Steven Vinick.
Today, Clancy’s lawyer Kevin Reddington claimed one of the jurors was preventing the panel from reaching a unanimous verdict and was refusing “to listen to the law” based on reasonable doubt. The defense attorney asked for that person to be removed from the jury.
“Being a lone holdout is not only consistent with our law, we tell jurors that, you know, they’re not supposed to compromise their strongly held beliefs,” Berger continued.
Lindsay Clancy is "heartened" and "has faith" in jury, her attorney says
Lindsay Clancy is “heartened” after court recessed for the day, her defense attorney Kevin Reddington said while leaving the courthouse this afternoon.
“She has faith in this jury,” he added. In court today, Reddington said one juror “refuses to listen to the law” on reasonable doubt and asked for them to be removed.
Asked if Clancy understands what’s going on, Reddington said he “did not have a conversation with her about it.”
The tense jury note discussion, explained
So what just happened in that tense discussion over a jury note in Lindsay Clancy’s trial?
Jury note: The jury sent a note, the attorneys and judge debated the note at a sidebar, and defense attorney Kevin Reddington appeared frustrated. The judge then spoke to each juror individually.
Judge instructs jury: With the entire jury present, the judge re-read legal instructions on following the law and reasonable doubt. The judge then sent the jury back to deliberate further.
Attorneys debate: Once the jury left, the attorneys and judge made arguments that illuminated what happened.
The jury note indicated they are split 11 to 1, and one juror “refuses to listen to the law” on reasonable doubt, according to Reddington. He objected to the judge’s re-reading of the instructions, requested more in-depth questioning of the jurors and asked the judge to remove that holdout juror.
The prosecution, though, agreed with the judge’s decision and said there was no way to determine what was going on in deliberations and who was correct or incorrect on the law.
Judge explains: Judge William Sullivan revealed that he asked each juror individually at sidebar if they can follow his instructions on the law.
“I don’t feel that it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations,” Sullivan said in court. “I don’t feel it’s appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or 11.”
What it all means: The defense feels confident that the 11 are for acquittal and is concerned that a mistrial is coming due to the lone holdout.
Judge expected to question lone juror Friday morning, Clancy’s attorney says
Judge William Sullivan is expected to question a juror Friday morning after Lindsay Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, accused the juror of disregarding the law during deliberations.
The judge will conduct an inquiry at 9 a.m. Friday, Reddington told reporters Thursday evening.
When asked if one juror was holding up a verdict, Reddington replied, saying, “Basically, there is a person who has doubt, but will not listen to the judge’s instruction.”
Clancy's attorney says he "hopes" jury will have a verdict tomorrow
Lindsay Clancy’s attorney Kevin Reddington told reporters he “hopes” the jury will come to a verdict tomorrow.
“Well, when a note that the judge already has says that there are 11 jurors that have made a decision and one juror will not apply reasonable doubt, I think that tells you where they’re at,” he said.
Analyst says lone juror unlikely to be removed
Analyst Robert Hirschhorn said he does not believe the single juror whom Lindsay Clancy’s attorney Kevin Reddington accused of not following the law will be removed from the trial.
Hirschhorn said a juror in this situation either gets on the case as a “stealth juror” — someone who enters the jury with a specific agenda — or was not adequately questioned during jury selection.
“They’re hoping tonight the jury will reconsider and change their mind. I rarely see that happen. I don’t think it’s going to happen here,” Hirschhorn said.
Former federal prosecutor Alyse Adamson said that if the verdict truly is 11-1 in favor of Clancy being not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, prosecutors will have to determine whether the case can be retried on the first-degree murder theory and if they want to present the case in the same manner.
Neama Rahmani, also a former federal prosecutor, said a retrial usually benefits the prosecution.
He said if the jury is split 11-1, there is “no world” where prosecutors would not seek a retrial, particularly in a case involving the deaths of three children.
A note from the jury, an exasperated defense and no verdict. Here’s what just happened
After days of deliberations without a verdict, the jury this afternoon sent a note to the court in Lindsay Clancy’s trial. A dramatic series of developments followed.
Here’s what happened:
- Atmosphere in court: It was very tense in the courtroom, with members of the public craning their necks, looking around the room and whispering to each other. Clancy stared straight ahead, not looking at her lawyer Kevin Reddington, who was seated beside her. At one point, Reddington was in an animated discussion with the judge at the bench. He slammed his hand on top of the papers on the judge’s bench with his voice raised. And after Reddington wheeled her up to the bench, Judge William Sullivan spoke directly with Clancy. She turned her head to look back at Reddington at a certain point, and he walked up behind her and rubbed her shoulder as she leaned back into him.
- Jurors brought to the bench: The judge this afternoon began bringing jurors up to the bench one by one to be sworn in. They were all very stoic and their interactions with the judge were brief.
- Reasonable doubt: Judge Sullivan read aloud to the jury the definition of “reasonable doubt” and also read aloud the jury instructions on reasonable doubt.
- More deliberations: The judge instructed the jury to continue to deliberate. They all left the courtroom. When Sullivan first indicated he would be sending the jury back, there were sounds of frustration spread across the gallery.
- An exasperated defense: According to Reddington, there is one juror who is preventing the panel from reaching a unanimous verdict. He told the judge that this juror is refusing “to listen to the law that you’ve given him or her on reasonable doubt.” He asked for that person to be removed from the jury. And then the prosecution told the judge they had no objection to the jury’s questions or the re-instructions given.
- Jury sent home: After further deliberation, the jurors returned to the courtroom and were sent home for the day. The jury will return on Friday at 9 a.m. to continue deliberations.
CNN’s Rebekah Riess, Nicki Brown, Eric Levenson, Elise Hammond and Maureen Chowdhury contributed reporting.
Deadlocked jury has deliberated for about 36.5 hours
The deadlocked jury in the triple-murder trial of Lindsay Clancy has deliberated for about 36.5 hours — and they’re not done yet.
The judge sent the jury home this afternoon, ending the sixth day of deliberations with no verdict. They will return Friday.
It was the right move for Sullivan not to remove juror, former prosecutor says
Judge William F. Sullivan made the right decision in not removing a holdout juror from Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial, one former federal prosecutor said.
The foreperson sent a note to the court saying that one juror “refuses to listen to the law” on reasonable doubt, defense attorney Kevin Reddington said. He asked for the judge to dismiss that juror.
Instead, Sullivan spoke with each juror individually and asked whether they could follow the law. He also read the instructions on reasonable doubt.
Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, said that Reddington saw an opportunity: if he could get that juror dismissed, he could potentially get an acquittal for Clancy. The judge did not specify which way any of the jurors were leaning.
Now, the question is whether that juror could be convinced to change their position, Rahmani said, because if they tell the judge a third time they are deadlocked, it would most likely be declared a mistrial.
Jury sent home for the day, will return for deliberations Friday
The jury in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial was sent home for the day Thursday and will return on Friday at 9 a.m. ET for further deliberations.
Jurors return to the courtroom
Jurors are back into the courtroom after further deliberation.
Court is back in session
Court is back in session after the jury was sent back to the deliberation room.
Analysts: Jury likely has been trying to sway one member the past 35 hours
Analysts Mark O’Mara and Areva Martin said it’s reasonable to assume that one juror has been the focus of the others’ efforts to sway them over the past 35 hours of deliberations, after Lindsay Clancy’s attorney Kevin Reddington said one member is refusing to follow the law.
“I have to appreciate the arrogance of Mr. Reddington, that he is the one saying ‘kick the one out who won’t let my client go,” O’Mara said. “That’s a strong position to take from a defense attorney.”
Martin said it’s “very difficult for people to understand” what it means to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and she doesn’t believe the judge’s decision to read the law again will get them any closer to a verdict.
“Presumably, they’re now going to go back to the one or two recalcitrant jurors and say ‘We just have to be sort of certain, right?’” O’Mara said.
Prosecution says there’s no way to know who is correct or who isn’t following jury note
The prosecution told the judge they had no objection to the jury’s questions or the reinstructions given.
“We have the note from the jury. There’s no way to determine what the deliberations are. Who’s correct, who’s incorrect,” the prosecutor said. “Nor should we attempt to, because that’s part of deliberations.”
She added that the judge’s latest instructions on reasonable doubt are “appropriate under, I think, what your honor has done by asking each juror if they’re able to follow the law and then giving a general instruction on reasonable doubt is appropriate under Commonwealth v. Ralph.”
“So we do not have an objection to what the questions or the reinstruction,” she said.
Sounds of frustration spread across the gallery
There were some exasperated sounds in the gallery when Judge William Sullivan first indicated he would be sending the jury back to continue deliberating after providing an instruction on reasonable doubt.
One female juror nodded slightly along with the instructions and glanced at a woman next to her at one point as Sullivan explained that it’s not enough for the commonwealth to establish a strong probability that the defendant is “more likely guilty than not guilty.”
Rather, the jury must be convinced of the defendant’s guilt to a reasonable and moral certainty, Sullivan told jurors.
