Mistrial in Lindsay Clancy triple-murder case after jury deadlock

A Massachusetts judge declared a mistrial on 4 September after jurors remained deadlocked for seven days in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. An emergency appeal to the state's highest court was denied.

Emergency appeal fails as judge declares mistrial in Clancy murder trial

A Massachusetts judge declared a mistrial on 4 September in the triple-murder trial of Lindsay Clancy after jurors spent seven days unable to reach a verdict, nytimes.com reports. A last-minute emergency appeal by defence attorney Kevin Reddington to the state's Supreme Judicial Court was denied, clearing the way for Judge William Sullivan to end the proceedings.

Clancy, now 36, faces three counts of murder for the strangulation deaths of her three children at the family's Massachusetts home in January 2023. Prosecutors contend the killings were deliberate and planned. Her defence argues she was not criminally responsible, citing postpartum psychosis at the time of the deaths. Clancy has pleaded not guilty.

Deadlock after more than 36 hours of deliberations

The jury had been at an impasse for days before Sullivan moved to declare a mistrial shortly after 11 a.m. ET on 4 September. A third note from the jury confirmed it remained deadlocked. The previous day, the jury foreperson had sent a note to Sullivan alleging that one juror "refused to listen" to the court's instructions on reasonable doubt, according to Reddington. By that point, deliberations had exceeded 36 hours.

Before Sullivan could formally declare a mistrial, Reddington requested one hour to file an emergency appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court. Sullivan granted the request. Under Massachusetts law, the Supreme Judicial Court has authority to intervene in lower court proceedings when no other remedy is available. An emergency hearing was held, but the court denied the defence's motion for a stay, and Sullivan subsequently declared the mistrial.

Row over holdout juror

Much of the day's tension centred on a single holdout juror. Reddington argued the juror was not properly applying the law and had potentially misled the judge during individual questioning.

"I believe that this is a situation where there is a clear and present danger, that this individual, for some reason, what it is, we don't know, but is taking a position that's intractable regardless of proof beyond a reasonable doubt," Reddington told the court.

He pushed for the juror's removal, telling Sullivan it would be a "real shame" if a mistrial resulted from "a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court." Sullivan declined the motion.

Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague opposed the removal, arguing the jury's notes indicated a disagreement over the interpretation of reasonable doubt rather than evidence of deception.

"The note indicates that the parties disagree on what is reasonable doubt or what doubt is and how it should be applied. And we are in no position to judge if the 11 are right or the one is right," Sprague said.

Exchange between judge and defence attorney

Tensions between Reddington and Sullivan surfaced openly during the session. After Reddington pressed Sullivan to deliver the legal instructions more firmly to the jury, the judge pushed back.

"What do you want me to do? Get a brass band?" Sullivan said.

Sullivan later acknowledged his delivery could have been more emphatic, adding before the jury returned to deliberations: "I'll try and give this with more pizzazz than I gave yesterday, I suppose." He maintained he had read the instructions as written by the Supreme Judicial Court and was not an actor.

Background of the case

The case drew widespread attention in the United States. Clancy, a labour and delivery nurse, was accused of strangling her three young children at the family's home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, before jumping from a window and sustaining serious injuries. Prosecutors characterised the acts as calculated; the defence's postpartum psychosis argument formed the centrepiece of the trial.

The mistrial leaves open the question of whether prosecutors will seek a retrial.

Source: Google News MT — Crime (en)