Tuey-Rodriguez Charge Explained as Lindsay Clancy Jury Deadlocks

The charge is used when a jury appears deadlocked, urging members to keep deliberating while making clear that no juror should surrender a sincere belief simply for the sake of reaching a decision.

Judge William Sullivan had first sent the panel back to continue discussions Tuesday after jurors signaled they were having difficulty finding consensus. When they again reported an impasse, Sullivan delivered the formal deadlock instruction.

Known specifically in Massachusetts as a Tuey-Rodriguez charge, the instruction is sometimes referred to as a “dynamite charge” because it is designed to help move stalled deliberations forward without pressuring jurors into a verdict.

The instruction stems from two landmark Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rulings. In Commonwealth v. Tuey in 1851, the court upheld language encouraging jurors at an impasse to reconsider their positions with an open mind. The wording was later revised in Commonwealth v. Rodriguez in 1973, when the state’s highest court sought to eliminate language that could be seen as pressuring minority or holdout jurors. The modern version directs all jurors to weigh one another’s views carefully while remaining faithful to their own honest convictions.

A Tuey-Rodriguez charge does not necessarily signal that a verdict is close. It is often viewed as a required step before a judge may declare a mistrial because of a hung jury, though in many cases jurors do eventually reach a unanimous decision after additional deliberation.

Retired Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Thomas Drechsler told News Outlet the instruction is typically given only after a judge determines jurors have fully deliberated but remain deadlocked.

“The charge encourages the jurors to rethink their own feelings in light of what other jurors feel” while reminding them that no one is in a better position to decide the case than the jurors who heard all the evidence, Drechsler said.

If jurors report they remain deadlocked after receiving the instruction, “there’s a higher likelihood” the case could end in a mistrial, Drechsler said, though he noted he has seen juries return verdicts after receiving a Tuey-Rodriguez charge.

Clancy faces three counts of first-degree murder in the January 2023 deaths of her three children — Cora, Dawson and Callan — at the family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts, home.

She does not dispute killing the children but argues she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was not criminally responsible at the time. Prosecutors contend Clancy was legally sane and intentionally planned the killings.

Jurors will continue deliberating after receiving the Tuey-Rodriguez charge. If they remain unable to reach a unanimous verdict, Sullivan could declare a mistrial, leaving prosecutors to decide whether to seek a new trial.