Defense attorney Kevin Reddington moved to boot a juror he says "refuses to listen to the law" on reasonable doubt as the Lindsay Clancy murder trial jury remained deadlocked for a sixth day in Plymouth, Massachusetts.
Judge William Sullivan denied the request, re-read reasonable doubt instructions to the panel of nine women and three men, and sent them back to deliberate, only to dismiss them for the day shortly after 4 p.m. with no verdict in sight. The confrontation marked the tensest moment yet in a trial that has stretched across more than 80 witnesses, over 300 exhibits, and now six grinding days of jury deliberations that have produced two formal deadlock notices and growing talk of a mistrial.
Clancy, a 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse, does not dispute that she strangled her three children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, with resistance bands on Jan. 24, 2023. She then threw herself from a second-floor window in a suicide attempt that left her paralyzed from the waist down. The central question for the jury is not whether she did it, but whether severe postpartum psychosis left her unable to form criminal intent. A first-degree murder conviction carries a mandatory life sentence. A finding of not guilty by reason of insanity would send her to a state mental health institution instead of prison.
The clash began Thursday after the jury returned from its lunch break and submitted a question to Sullivan. The judge did not read the note aloud, but NBC News reported it appeared to involve reasonable doubt. Sullivan responded by repeating his reasonable doubt instructions to the panel.
"A charge is proved beyond a doubt if, after you've compared and considered all of the evidence, you have in your minds an abiding conviction to a moral certainty that the charge is true," Sullivan told the jury.
After the jury left the courtroom, Reddington addressed the judge and moved to have one juror removed. He alleged that juror "refuses to listen to the law that you have given him or her on reasonable doubt." He described Sullivan's instructions as "soft." An NBC News team in the courtroom observed Reddington appearing animated during a sidebar, waving papers aggressively. At one point, he walked over to Clancy, who appeared upset, and wheeled her to the sidebar so she could be included in the conversation. She returned to the defense table with a stoic expression.
Sullivan refused the request. He told the courtroom he would not take sides in the jury's internal disagreement.
"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."
Instead, the judge individually brought in each juror and asked whether they could follow his instructions. Sullivan said each one confirmed they could. "They've said at this point that they can," he told the courtroom. "That was specifically addressed towards the specific question, and that's what I'm doing."
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague pushed back on Reddington's motion, telling the court there was "no way to determine what the deliberations are." She said the judge's response to the jury's note was appropriate.
The jury first reported it could not reach a unanimous verdict on Tuesday morning, after roughly 17 hours of deliberations. Sullivan ordered the panel to keep deliberating.
On Wednesday afternoon, the jury sent a second deadlock note after returning from lunch. Sullivan responded with what is known in Massachusetts courts as a Tuey-Rodriguez instruction, a last-resort charge that essentially asks jurors to give deliberations one final chance and tells them it is "desirable" they reach a verdict. Legal observers have compared it to a "dynamite charge," a judicial tool designed to push a stuck jury past its impasse. AP News reported that Sullivan told the jury he understood the difficulty of the case but urged them to return the next day.
By Thursday, when the jury submitted its question rather than a third formal deadlock notice, the trial had reached a procedural crossroads. Under Massachusetts practice, Sullivan can only send the jury back to deliberate twice before declaring a mistrial, unless the jurors themselves consent to additional days. A third deadlock note would almost certainly end the trial without a verdict.
Veteran Boston criminal defense attorney Brad Bailey told the New York Post that the options are running out. "If they come back after Tuey is read and say we are hopelessly deadlocked, that usually is it and should be it according to the case law," Bailey said. Boston lawyer Peter Elikann agreed: "I think if they come back a third time, in all likelihood the judge would not continue to push, pressure, and prod them."
Elyse Hershon, a Boston criminal defense attorney and legal analyst, was more direct. "The next time they say they are deadlocked or unagreed, that is usually the mistrial call," Hershon said.
Before Thursday's courtroom confrontation, Reddington told reporters outside the courthouse that morning he would be prepared for a second trial as early as next week if a mistrial is declared. The comment signaled the defense team's expectation that the current jury may never reach agreement, and that Reddington sees the deadlock as favorable terrain for his client.
The defense has argued throughout the trial that Clancy was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis at the time of the killings. Reddington contended her doctors mismanaged her condition by prescribing over a dozen potentially dangerous medications. The defense's position is that Clancy was hallucinating, hearing a voice telling her to kill her children, and was therefore not criminally responsible for her actions.
The prosecution has sought a first-degree murder conviction on all three counts. Testimony earlier in the trial detailed what Clancy said to each child before strangling them, evidence prosecutors used to argue she acted with deliberation.
The jury can also consider second-degree murder, manslaughter, or a finding of not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility. Each carries vastly different consequences, from life behind bars to commitment at a mental health facility.
The trial itself has not been without its own disruptions. A woman was charged with filming jurors during proceedings, an incident that added another layer of tension to an already fraught courtroom atmosphere. And earlier in the case, the defense moved for a mistrial over the conduct of a prosecution psychologist, a motion Sullivan also denied.
The jury has now deliberated for more than 31 hours across six days. The Washington Examiner reported that the panel spent over 17 hours deliberating before its first deadlock note and more than 41 hours total across both rounds. Sullivan acknowledged the weight of the case when he sent the jury back after its second deadlock, telling them he understood the trial had been long but asking them to try again.
"I brought you back out because I know that this was a long trial. All right, I know. There were over 80 witnesses, there were over 300 exhibits. But because of that, I'm going to ask you to go back out."
On Thursday, the jury deliberated for roughly 30 more minutes after Sullivan re-read the reasonable doubt instructions before being dismissed for the day. Whether they return Friday with a verdict, a third deadlock note, or another question will likely determine whether this case ends with a conviction, an acquittal, or a hung jury that forces the whole process to start over.
A prosecution psychiatrist quit his hospital job hours after testifying in this case. A woman was arrested for filming jurors. The defense has accused the prosecution of misconduct. And now six days of deliberations have produced nothing but deadlock and a defense attorney demanding a juror's removal. Whatever the jury decides, if it decides anything at all, this trial has already become a case study in how difficult it is to hold anyone accountable when the defense is built not on innocence, but on the claim that guilt itself does not apply.
Three children are dead. The only question left is whether the system can deliver an answer their memory deserves.
