Judge refuses to remove juror in Lindsay Clancy murder trial as deliberations deadlock persists
A Massachusetts jury deadlocked over three counts of first-degree murder has signaled internal conflict over applying the legal standard of reasonable doubt, but the judge declined the defense request to remove the holdout juror.
What happened
On the sixth day of deliberations in Plymouth, Massachusetts, the jury forewoman sent Judge William Sullivan a note stating that one juror refused to follow his instructions on reasonable doubt. Defense lawyer Kevin Reddington requested the removal of that juror; Judge Sullivan denied the motion, stating he could not side with one party over another in deliberations. The judge then individually questioned each juror and reiterated that they must unanimously believe beyond reasonable doubt that defendant Lindsay Clancy is guilty to convict. The jury has deliberated approximately 35 hours across nearly six weeks of trial without reaching a verdict and previously sent two notes indicating it could not reach unanimity.
Context
Clancy, 36, is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her three children in January 2023. She does not dispute that she strangled them but argues she was experiencing postpartum psychosis and could not distinguish right from wrong—a potential basis for acquittal on grounds of insanity rather than conviction. Under U.S. law, conviction requires unanimous jury agreement to guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the strictest legal standard. A deadlocked jury that cannot reach unanimity results in a mistrial, after which prosecutors must decide whether to retry the case. If convicted, Clancy faces life without parole; if found not guilty by reason of insanity, she could be committed to a state psychiatric hospital.
What's disputed
The defense lawyer stated he had no indication of what the lone juror was thinking and did not confirm the 11-1 split the jury forewoman reported earlier.