By RACHEL BOWMAN, US SENIOR NEWS REPORTER and RACHEL SHARP, CRIME CORRESPONDENT
Lindsay Clancy's lawyer erupted in court on Thursday as her murder trial descended into fresh chaos, accusing a lone juror of holding up the verdict after six grueling days of deliberations.
Kevin Reddington demanded Judge William Sullivan remove the juror, claiming they were 'refusing to listen to the law' as the panel remained locked in a bitter deadlock.
The jury has now been deliberating for 35 hours without reaching a verdict. In a tense courtroom moment, Clancy, Reddington and prosecutors waited at Judge William Sullivan's bench as jurors were called into the courtroom one at a time, questioned, and then excused.
A note from a jury foreperson was given to the judge that stated one of the 12 is not following the law as it pertains to reasonable doubt. After judge Sullivan gave a renewed instruction, Reddington exclaimed that the juror should be dismissed.
The jury must decide whether Clancy is guilty of three murder counts after the former labor and delivery nurse killed her children Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, eight months, using exercise bands at her home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in January 2023.
If the jury is unable to reach a verdict, the judge will eventually be forced to declare a mistrial. If Clancy is found not criminally responsible for the three murder charges, she will be sent to a state mental health facility in the future.
Clancy has pleaded not guilty in her case, citing postpartum depression, psychosis and overmedication by prescribers. Prosecutors acknowledged that Clancy was mentally ill, but maintain that she knew what she was doing at the time of the killings.
Judge William Sullivan dismissed the jury for the day after he warned them to follow the law on reasonable doubt.
'What I’m going to do is excuse you until tomorrow morning at nine o’clock,' Judge Sullivan said.
He then advised them to continue to follow his instructions – do not discuss the case.
About an hour earlier, the jury foreperson sent a note to the judge saying that one of the 12 is not following the law when it comes to reasonable doubt.
The jurors were each asked, one by one, whether they could follow the law on reasonable doubt. It sounds like they all said yes.
The judge then gave that renewed instruction focusing on reasonable doubt.
Prosecutor Sprague insisted the judge's instructions on reasonable doubt were sufficient.
