Lindsay Clancy trial jury might be close to a verdict or a mistrial, depending on holdout juror

The Lindsay Clancy murder trial resumed Friday in Massachusetts as jurors returned for a seventh day of deliberations following a stunning turn of events.

The jury is split 11-to-1 after discussing the case for more than 35 hours. Clancy's attorney Kevin Reddington is assuming the split is in favor of acquittal. The one holdout is allegedly not following the judge's orders on reasonable doubt.

Motion to further question holdout juror denied

Plymouth Superior Court Judge William Sullivan held a hearing at 9 a.m. before the jury was brought in to determine if the holdout juror should be dismissed, based on a request from Clancy's attorney. The hearing was short, but tense.

"I would go so far as to say he lied under oath," Reddington said, calling for the juror to be removed. Sullivan rejected his request.

"I'm not going to do a further inquiry of this juror," the judge said. "It's their duty to accept the law as I've given it to them."

"I'm not an actor!"

Reddington then objected. While asking for a second inquiry, he told the judge he wanted Sullivan to do it more forcefully this time.

"You did it yesterday, you did it soft. You didn't do it forcefully," Reddington said.

"What do you want me to do? Get a brass band?" Sullivan shot back. "I read the instruction as written by the SJC (Supreme Judicial Court). The fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that. I'm not an actor. I'm just giving the instructions."

Reddington then accused the judge of "glossing over" the issue that the juror will "not apply the law of reasonable doubt."

"I am specifically not glossing over this issue. I have thought about this issue long and hard," Sullivan replied.  

The jury was then brought in and they resumed deliberations at 9:25 a.m.

2 notes from jury Thursday

Reddington said a note the jury foreperson sent to the judge late Thursday afternoon identified the one juror who's allegedly a holdout. Reddington wants the juror kicked off the jury and replaced by one of six alternates so deliberations can start all over again. The judge rejected Reddington's request Thursday and again after Friday's hearing.

After seeing the note, Sullivan questioned each juror individually Thursday afternoon and then spoke to them as a group, repeating his instruction on the meaning of reasonable doubt.

"I've told you that every person is presumed to be innocent until they are proved guilty and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor," Sullivan said.

On Friday, the judge confirmed that a second note came back from the jury at the end of the day Thursday. He didn't read it aloud in court, but Reddington quoted the note as saying, a particular juror "has made statements acknowledging doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states." 

Reddington referred to the unknown juror as "he." There are three men  and nine women on the jury.

Lindsay Clancy jury holdout

Reddington said the one holdout is not following the law. CBS News legal contributor Caroline Polisi explained why this is so important.

"There's a huge distinction between knowing what the law is and outrightly saying, 'I will not follow it,' versus knowing what the law is, saying 'I'm applying the facts as I saw them in this case, to the law as I understand it from the judge and this is my position.' That's how the legal system works. If there is a holdout, there's a holdout. That's a hung jury and that would be a mistrial," Polisi said on CBS Mornings Friday. 

Reddington told reporters he wants to avoid a mistrial. Prosecutors want the jury to keep deliberating, even though they've said twice this week that they're deadlocked. 

"This is getting really messy. I think we might be even creating new law. He sent these jurors back multiple times. It is getting ugly, we can tell. When jurors snitch on each other that's when you can tell things are getting heated back in the jury room. This, in my opinion, is just heading towards that. It's got to stop," Polisi said.

Lindsay Clancy case

Clancy has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in the strangulation deaths of her three children - 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan - in their Duxbury home on Jan. 24, 2023.  

Reddington said Clancy was not criminally responsible for killing her children because she was overmedicated and suffering from postpartum psychosis. Prosecutors said Clancy planned the killings and knew right from wrong when she strangled the children.

The jury has the option to unanimously vote for one of five options for her - not guilty by reason of insanity, not guilty, first-degree murder, second-degree murder or manslaughter.  

If the jury convicts her of first-degree murder, second-degree murder or manslaughter, she will go to prison. If jurors find her not guilty by reason of insanity, she will be required to continue her stay at Tewksbury State Hospital, where her case will be reviewed periodically.

If you or someone you know is in emotional distress or a suicidal crisis, you can reach the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by calling or texting 988. You can also chat with the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline here.

For more information about mental health care resources and support, the National Alliance on Mental Illness HelpLine can be reached Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. ET, at 1-800-950-NAMI (6264) or email info@nami.org.