Judge declares mistrial in Lindsay Clancy murder trial

The judge declared a mistrial Friday in the case of Lindsay Clancy, after jurors were unable to come to an agreement about whether to accept her insanity plea to murder charges.

For the third time since deliberations began, jurors reported being unable to come to a consensus.

Kevin Reddington, Clancy’s attorney, asked for the dynamite charge, a set of instructions that encourage the jury to deliberate further, to be read for a second time.

But Judge William Sullivan objected, moving to bring the case to a conclusion.

“I’m going to declare a mistrial at this point,” Sullivan said.

Reddington then asked the court for a stay, and the judge gave Reddington an hour to petition the court. Prosecutors would have the option to try Clancy’s case again.

The jury was in its seventh day of deliberations, which stretched on for nearly 40 hours. Clancy has admitted to the strangulation deaths of her three children - the jury was tasked with deciding whether to accept her insanity plea.

Earlier Friday, Sullivan declined to remove or further question a juror that the defense says was holding up a not-guilty verdict in the trial of Clancy, the Massachusetts mother who is being tried over the strangulation deaths of her three children.

Reddington had attempted for a second day to argue that the juror is in violation of the law.

“When you have a situation where you have not one but two notes, that clearly indicates that this individual has acknowledged doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict, he is - as the law states - he is not being honest with you at the sidebar, I would go so far as to reluctantly say that the individual has made a false statement under oath to this court,” Reddington said.

On Thursday, a jury foreperson sent a note to the judge indicating that a juror had acknowledged doubt in the case but was refusing to apply it to the verdict. The note was the first public indication that the jury, which has twice told Sullivan that they are unable to reach consensus, is being held up by a lone juror.

Sullivan called the jurors into the courtroom one-by-one Thursday, swore them in, and asked them to affirm that they were able to carry out their duties in accordance with the law.

He then brought the jurors together to read them instructions that spell out their obligations, and the meaning of reasonable doubt: a legal standard that requires jurors to be fully convinced of guilt based on evidence if they convict.

Reddington argued that the juror should be removed for failing to comply with the judge’s orders.

“If we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it’s a shame,” he said on Thursday.

After the conclusion of court on Thursday, Reddington told reporters that there would be an “inquiry” by the judge on Friday.

On Friday morning, Reddington pressed Sullivan to question the juror further, pointing to the rare decision by the foreperson to alert the court about the state of deliberations.

The foreperson is the juror tasked with leading the jury and announcing its final verdict.

“I have never seen a situation like this where a foreperson on the jury is so courageous as to speak on behalf of 11 jurors and indicate that juror number - which I will not mention - and I quote, ‘has made statements acknowledging doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states,’” Reddington said.

But Sullivan declined to further question the juror, saying his inquiry of all the jurors on Thursday was enough.

“This is not a case that there’s any indication that the juror has refused to deliberate, or has indicated that they would not follow the law, or that they’re physically suffering. There’s no note from the juror that indicates that the juror cannot or will not be able to continue deliberating,” Sullivan said. “So I’m not going to do a further inquiry of this juror, over the defendant’s objection.”