Lindsay Clancy murder trial ends in mistrial after dramatic appeal from defense
The high-profile murder case of Lindsay Clancy was plunged into chaos Friday after the judge said he was going to declare a mistrial, and Clancy’s defense attorney immediately sought to block that from happening.
Hours later, after the defense’s appeal to a higher state court was denied, Judge William Sullivan said the jury was deadlocked and declared a mistrial.
The jury was in its seventh day of deliberations, which have stretched on for nearly 40 hours. Clancy has admitted to killing her three children, and the jury was tasked with deciding whether to accept her insanity plea. Clancy’s case has captured the public’s attention for the nature of the crimes and become a cultural touchpoint, putting postpartum mental health issues in the spotlight.
At issue in the debate over the mistrial were the actions of a lone juror who Clancy’s defense argued was not following orders from the judge in regard to reasonable doubt.
Attorneys for Clancy submitted an emergency petition to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, asking it to order Sullivan to further scrutinize the juror or prevent them from continuing to deliberate until the judge can determine that the person is able to follow the court’s instructions.
They said the higher court’s involvement was needed to prevent “an avoidable mistrial of a case that is so time and labor intensive and that has captured so much public attention.”
Earlier Friday, Sullivan declined to remove or further question the juror that the defense said was holding up a not-guilty verdict.
After jurors were unable to come to an agreement about whether to accept her insanity plea to murder charges, Clancy’s attorney Kevin Reddington asked for the jurors to be sent back to deliberations.
But Sullivan objected, moving to bring the case to a conclusion.
“Over the defendant’s objection, I’m going to declare a mistrial at this point,” Sullivan said.
Just before Sullivan brought in the jury, Reddington made a dramatic appeal for the court to halt proceedings.
Reddington was then given an hour to petition a higher court. He cited a Massachusetts law that gives the state’s Supreme Judicial Court “general superintendence,” and the ability to prevent and address issues in lower courts when there is no other option available.
“What I’m asking for is time to file a single justice appeal for this travesty,” Reddington said. “That’s what I’m asking for.”
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.
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.”