Happening now
• Jurors in Lindsay Clancy’s trial are continuing their deliberations after they informed the judge this morning they were unable to reach a unanimous decision. The judge sent them back to continue deliberating.
• The Massachusetts mother is accused of murder after strangling her three young children. The jury could consider charges of first-degree murder, second-degree murder or manslaughter.
• Prosecutors have argued Clancy acted “intentionally, rationally, and swiftly” to kill her children. The defense, however, has argued Clancy should not be held criminally responsible because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis. If the jury finds Clancy not criminally responsible for the killings of her children, she could spend the rest of her life in a hospital.
Jurors have been working hard but they’re likely "fatigued," body language expert says
The jurors in the Lindsay Clancy case had been “hyper focused” but likely “fatigued” after several days of deliberations, a body language expert and jury consultant said Tuesday morning before the panel indicated it was deadlocked.
“They’re deconstructing and then reconstructing and rebuilding their own theory,” Susan Constantine told CNN’s Sara Sidner on “CNN News Central.” “They didn’t even ask any further questions. They didn’t ask about the verdict form. They didn’t ask about the instructions. So that’s telling me they’re really working hard rebuilding this case.”
But their efforts, Constantine said, may also be leaving them “fatigued.”
“Cognitive bias” is also a concern during deliberations, Constantine said. If there are jurors with already-formed opinions, other jurors will need to test those hypotheses.
Remember, here's what both sides said during their closing arguments in Clancy's trial
Both sides presented their final closing argument to the jury before it started deliberating on Thursday. Here’s a recap.
Defense:
- In his closing argument, defense attorney Kevin Reddington said evidence shows Clancy was “a darn good mother” and the killings happened “because of the damn medicine and the lousy medical care” Clancy received.
- Reddington said Clancy “lived for her kids” until doctors began overprescribing her medications. The evidence presented showed Clancy had raised concerns about the medications, he said, and her handwritten notes show how her mental state deteriorated.
- Clancy is not “criminally responsible” for the crime because of her psychological state, he said, citing the expert opinion of forensic psychiatrist Dr. Phillip Resnick. The psychiatrist examined Clancy and testified she was not in control of her actions during the killings.
- Experts for both sides acknowledged during the trial that Clancy made a “serious suicide attempt,” Reddington said. The jury was also presented exhibits that support that, he said.
- The defense lawyer also accused police of not conducting a thorough investigation.
Prosecution:
- Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague told jurors that “there’s no dispute that Lindsay Clancy was suffering from a mental illness and that she tried to kill herself,” but the issue is if she “knew the difference between right and wrong” when she killed her three kids. Killing them “was a choice,” she said.
- Sprague argued Clancy interacted with the public and presented “herself as a functioning adult, a functioning mom.” She pointed out Clancy chose not to tell mandated reporters about thoughts of harming her kids and how she took her daughter to the doctor the day of the killings.
- Sprague also said Clancy did not immediately tell her husband that she heard a voice that directed her to kill the kids. Further, the failure of the suicide attempt shows that there was no voice in her head, Sprague argued, pointing out that the pills she took were not at a lethal level and cut wounds were “superficial.”
- Clancy had resources, support and access to great medical care but did not follow through on a plan, Sprague said. Medical providers aren’t at fault for Clancy’s depression because she wasn’t always being honest with her doctors about her condition, according to Sprague.
CNN’s Nicki Brown, Lauren del Valle, Eric Levenson, Maureen Chowdhury and Chelsea Bailey contributed reporting.
What is a “dynamite” charge from the judge
When a jury says it is hopelessly deadlocked, a judge may read aloud special instructions known as a “dynamite charge.” The orders ask jurors to consider the reasonableness of their own opinions and others’ and to continue deliberating toward a verdict.
The idea is to blow up any impasse to avoid a hung jury and mistrial. This is referred to in Massachusetts as the Tuey-Rodriguez instructions and is known nationally as an Allen Charge.
In Clancy’s trial, state Judge William F. Sullivan has not read the Tuey-Rodriguez instructions. He may choose to do so if the jury continues to report it is deadlocked and cannot reach a unanimous verdict.
Another case: In 2024, the judge overseeing Karen Read’s first murder trial read aloud the Tuey-Rodriguez instructions to a deadlocked jury. After deliberating further, that jury still could not come to a verdict, and the judge declared a mistrial.
Legal expert explains what happens when the jury is deadlocked
When a jury says it cannot come to a unanimous verdict, the trial does not immediately end, criminal defense attorney Elyse Hershon explained.
Instead, the judge will send jurors back to deliberate — potentially multiple times — and encourage them to continue deliberating toward a unanimous verdict. If the jury continues to report it is deadlocked, the judge will read special instructions known as a “dynamite charge” giving the jury a final chance to reach a verdict.
And if still the jurors cannot do so, the judge will declare a mistrial, ending the trial without a resolution and leaving open the possibility of another trial down the road.
“It will be at least one or two more notes from the jury, I would anticipate, that says they cannot agree (before a mistrial),” Hershon said.
Hershon said it is not clear if the jury is deadlocked on one or all of the charges, and whether there is a possibility of a partial verdict.
How the jury reacted to continuing deliberations
Lindsay Clancy sat in court Tuesday wearing a long-sleeved, tan sweater and a matching headband.
After a brief sidebar with state Judge William Sullivan, prosecutors and Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, returned their seats. Reddington then talked quietly to his client.
The jurors were all solemn and straight-faced when they entered the courtroom. One female juror glanced at the defense table, then at prosecutors as she walked in. The others kept their eyes straight ahead. One man rubbed his face before he took a seat.
There were a few gasps in the courtroom gallery as the judge read the jury’s note aloud: They couldn’t come to a unanimous decision.
Though these jurors generally have been responsive to the judge, they did not visibly react as he told them to keep deliberating. One female juror closed her eyes for a long time with her hands clasped in her lap as Sullivan directed them to continue.
What it's like around court as the jurors continue deliberations
About 15 people – most of them women – were seated in the public section of the gallery during the proceedings today. One of them sported a neon pink rain jacket, and another wore a pink bandana.
Since the jury began their deliberations, there have been significantly fewer members of the public in the gallery.
Journalists and the public are not allowed to remain inside the courtroom while the jury deliberates, so the hallway is now filled with people clustering near the courtroom doors.
The few benches in the hallway outside the courtroom are packed with people sitting shoulder-to-shoulder, with several even sitting on the floor.
Clancy jury has deliberated for about 19 hours
Jurors weighing Lindsay Clancy’s fate deliberated for some 19 hours before saying they’ve failed to reach a unanimous decision.
State Judge William Sullivan of Plymouth County asked them to return to deliberations.
The panel of nine women and three men has been tasked with sifting through over 80 witnesses and 300 exhibits, the judge said.
In 2006, a Texas jury deliberated for about 13 hours before deciding Andrea Yates was insane when she drowned each of her five children in a bathtub. The panel of six men and six women deliberated for three days before issuing the not guilty verdict.
The outcome was a sharp turnaround for Yates, a former nurse originally sentenced in 2002 to life in prison after a jury found her guilty of capital murder. She was granted a new trial after an expert witness’s testimony was called into question.
Yates remains in a psychiatric hospital.
What we know about the jury deciding Clancy's case
The jury is made up of nine women and three men. Six alternates — three men and three women — were dismissed and were not part of the deliberations.
Many of the empaneled jurors were diligently taking notes during the testimony. The jury foreperson is a woman with gray hair and glasses.
The jury would need to make its decision unanimously.
Each verdict slip has several options: Not guilty, not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, guilty of first-degree murder, guilty of second-degree murder and guilty of manslaughter.
NOW: Jury indicates they are deadlocked in Lindsay Clancy trial
The jury in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial indicated it is deadlocked and cannot come to a unanimous verdict, a scenario that could lead to a mistrial.
“After many hours of deliberation, we are unable to come to a unanimous decision,” the note said, according to state Judge William Sullivan.
The judge sent the 12-person jury back to deliberate further and try to break the impasse.
If jurors still cannot come to a unanimous decision, the judge may declare a mistrial, ending the trial without a clear resolution.
Clancy, 36, pleaded not guilty to three counts of murder for the killings of her children Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and 8-month-old Callan. Her defense attorney argues she is not criminally responsible because she was experiencing postpartum psychosis, a rare mental health condition.
Jurors are considering five verdicts: guilty of first-degree murder, guilty of second-degree murder, guilty of manslaughter, not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility or not guilty.
