Here's the latest
• Today’s agenda: A deadlocked jury is expected to continue deliberating in Lindsay Clancy’s trial after a series of dramatic events unfolded in court yesterday. In a rare move, Judge William Sullivan is expected to question a holdout juror this morning, according to defense attorney Kevin Reddington.
• Zeroing in on one juror: A jury note to the judge yesterday indicated they are split 11 to 1, and one juror “refuses to listen to the law” on reasonable doubt, according to Reddington. Clancy’s lawyer asked that the person be removed from the jury; analysts believe that’s unlikely.
• About the case: The Massachusetts mother is accused of murder after strangling her three young children in 2023. 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.
Jury in "Diddy" case also expressed concern over single juror
Like in the Lindsay Clancy case, the jury in the Sean “Diddy” Combs sex trafficking case expressed their concern over a single juror who they said was not following the judge’s instructions.
Ultimately, the Combs jury returned a split verdict after deliberating for three days, just before the July Fourth holiday in 2025.
Here’s what happened:
Around an hour after the federal jury started deliberating the case on June 30, the jury foreperson informed the judge about a potential issue.
“We have a juror #25 who we are concerned cannot follow your honor’s instructions,” the foreperson wrote.
The judge overseeing the case then reminded the jury of its obligation to follow his instructions on the law.
Deliberations continued. Around 4 p.m. the following day, the jury foreperson wrote to the judge, saying that they reached a verdict on four of the five counts.
“We are unable to reach a verdict on Count 1 as we have jurors with unpersuadable opinions on both sides,” according to the note.
The deadlock didn’t last long. The following morning, the foreperson sent a note informing the judge that the jury had reached a unanimous verdict on all counts.
Combs was acquitted on the most serious counts, including Count 1, racketeering conspiracy, as well as two counts of sex trafficking two former girlfriends. He was convicted on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution and sentenced to 50 months in prison. Combs is appealing. He is currently scheduled for release in February 2028.
Judge is unlikely to question holdout juror in open court, trial consultant says
While Judge William Sullivan is expected to question a holdout juror this morning, he is unlikely to do so in open court, a trial consultant tells CNN.
“I think he probably will address the entire jury and walk through the instructions, explain what reasonable doubt is, and then maybe question that juror on the sidebar,” Susan Constantine, a trial consultant and body language expert, told CNN’s Omar Jimenez on CNN News Central.
“I can’t imagine he’s going to do this in open court, in front of everybody. But then again, there’s been so many twist, we don’t know what to expect,” Constantine added.
Why prosecutors cited a 2022 ruling in a juror misconduct appeal in the Clancy trial
Prosecutors cited a 2022 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in court Thursday after a note from the jury raised questions about whether one juror was following Judge William Sullivan’s instructions on reasonable doubt.
The ruling in Commonwealth v. Ralph involved a different issue – possible racial or discriminatory bias during jury deliberations – but it sets parameters for how judges should respond when a concern is raised about possible misconduct during deliberations.
In the case, the jury foreperson reported “discriminating comments” made during deliberations. Massachusetts’ highest court ruled those comments “cannot be ignored,” and the trial judge should have conducted a limited preliminary inquiry to better understand the allegation.
The ruling says judges in similar situations must be careful not to ask jurors about what was said or discussed during deliberations. The judge may first question the juror who raised the concern to assess whether the report is credible and clarify what is being alleged. The judge then has discretion to decide whether other jurors should also be questioned. If the judge finds the report is not credible, the ruling says that finding should be explained on the record.
After the note from the jury Thursday raising concerns, Sullivan questioned each juror individually, then read further instructions about following the law on reasonable doubt and sent them back to keep deliberating.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington then requested more questioning of the jurors and asked for one juror to be removed. But prosecutors said they were satisfied with the judge’s action, arguing it was “appropriate under Commonwealth v. Ralph.”
The jury is set to return to court Friday morning for the seventh day of deliberations.
Misty morning outside Plymouth County Superior Court
It is a very misty morning here outside the Plymouth County Superior Court.
There are around 20 people currently in line to enter ahead of another day of jury deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy trial, about half of them journalists.
The first person in line, a journalist, arrived at 4:00 a.m.
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.
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 jury has been deliberating for more than 36 hours. Here's what happened yesterday
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."
After days of deliberations without a verdict, the jury is back to work today, for the seventh day of deliberations in Lindsay Clancy’s trial.
The foreperson sent a note to the court yesterday afternoon and 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 brought 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.
CNN’s Rebekah Riess, Nicki Brown, Eric Levenson, Elise Hammond and Maureen Chowdhury contributed reporting.
What we know about the tense discussion over a jury note
The lawyers and the judge had a tense discussion yesterday afternoon about a note sent by the jury in Lindsay Clancy’s trial.
Here’s what we know:
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.
Clancy's attorney says he "hopes" a verdict could come today
As he was leaving the courthouse last night, Lindsay Clancy’s attorney Kevin Reddington told reporters he “hopes” the jury will come to a verdict today.
Clancy is “heartened” and “has faith in this jury,” he said.
Reddington said one juror “refuses to listen to the law” on reasonable doubt and asked for them to be removed. The judge instead spoke to each juror individually before reading them instructions on reasonable doubt.
The jury already indicated that it was deadlocked twice this week. The judge formally read them the Tuey-Rodriguez instructions and told them to keep trying. The next time the jury says it can’t reach a verdict, the judge will likely declare a mistrial.
