The murder trial of Lindsay Clancy reached its most tense moment yet Thursday, ending with her defense attorney accusing a deliberating juror of failing to apply the law.
Judge William Sullivan sent the jury home for the day after the foreperson alerted the court in a note that one of the 12 jurors was not following the legal standard for reasonable doubt.
Clancy was then brought in her wheelchair to the judge’s bench by her lawyer, Kevin Reddington. She watched alongside prosecutors as Sullivan questioned each juror individually, asking whether they could follow the law on reasonable doubt. Each appeared to answer yes.
Sullivan then reiterated his instructions on reasonable doubt and directed the panel to resume deliberations.
‘You are required to follow my instructions on the law as I gave them to you,’ he said.
‘Reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges made against her.
‘If you evaluate all the evidence and you still have a reasonable doubt remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be acquitted.’
Moments later, Reddington erupted in court, saying a lone holdout juror was preventing the jury from reaching a verdict.
The Lindsay Clancy jury has deliberated for 35 hours to determine whether she is guilty of murder, manslaughter or not criminally responsible for her actions
Judge William Sullivan dismissed the jury for the day on Thursday after the foreperson sent a note saying one of the 12 jurors was not following the law on reasonable doubt
‘The court has an instruction from the foreperson of that jury who’s been working for a week now, saying that there’s one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you’ve given him or her on reasonable doubt,’ Reddington said, growing animated.
‘I suggest respectfully that the soft instruction that you gave them, saying at the sidebar, “Can you listen to the law as I instruct you?” does not focus on the issue. The question is not sufficient enough. It does not allow any foundation for a motion to remove the juror who refuses to accept your instructions on the law.
‘If we come back here in a half hour with a mistrial because a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it’s a shame.
He then demanded that the juror to be removed.
The panel of 12, nine women and three men, has now deliberated for 35 hours to determine whether Clancy is guilty of murder, manslaughter or not criminally responsible for her actions.
They are still deadlocked, and a verdict has not been given.
Clancy, 36, is on trial for the murders of her three children, Cora, five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan, at her home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in 2023.
She admitted to killing her children but pleaded not guilty to murder by reason of insanity, citing postpartum psychosis as a result of overmedication.
During the five weeks of testimony, prosecutors argued the killings were intentional and well planned, not the work of someone who had lost control.
The defense attorney speaks to his client Clancy during the tense moment in court
Reddington demanded that the one juror who is allegedly not following the law be removed
Clancy was then wheeled up to the judge’s bench by her attorney, Kevin Reddington, and watched, along with the prosecution, as the judge asked each juror, one by one, whether they could follow the law on reasonable doubt
Clancy, 36, is on trial for the murders of her three children, Cora, five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan, at her home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in 2023
The jury has not been sequestered during their deliberations.
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague insisted the judge’s instructions on reasonable doubt were sufficient.
‘We have the note from the jury. There’s no way to determine what the deliberations are, who’s correct, who’s incorrect, nor should we attempt to, because that is part of deliberations,’ she said.
‘I think what Your Honor has done, by asking each juror if they’re able to follow the law and then giving a general instruction on reasonable doubt, is appropriate.’
Judge Sullivan noted the defense’s motion and acknowledged that removing a juror is a ‘sensitive undertaking.’
‘I’m sure the parties understand that the discharge of a deliberating juror is a sensitive undertaking,’ Sullivan said.
‘I was just specifically responding to the specific question that was asked. I don’t feel that it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations. I don’t feel it’s appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or the 11.
‘At this point, I’ve asked if they are able to follow my instructions; they swore earlier that they could.’
