Watch: What it was like in court as Lindsay Clancy's lawyer asked judge to remove juror
After a gruelling five-week murder trial, Lindsay Clancy's fate rests with 12 anonymous jurors. And they cannot make up their minds.
The jury of nine women and three men have told the judge, for three days in a row, that they have not reached a unanimous decision. Despite the judge's continued urging that jurors keep at it, the struggle has raised the prospect of a mistrial in Clancy's case.
"It is desired that the case be decided," Judge William Sullivan told the panel on Wednesday afternoon, after members sent him a second note saying they are undecided after five days. He sent them back – some with frustrated expressions on their faces.
On Thursday – the sixth day of deliberations – still undecided, the jury sent another note to the judge. According to Clancy's attorney Kevin Reddington, it said one juror was not following the judge's instructions regarding reasonable doubt.
In the courtroom, Sullivan re-explained reasonable doubt, before sending them back to deliberate. He also refused to remove the juror in question, saying he did not want to interfere with the jury. The jury will return Friday to continue.
Under US law, the jury must unanimously reach a conclusion "beyond a reasonable doubt", meaning the evidence has to leave jurors unwaveringly convinced of her guilt. If they cannot, the judge can call a mistrial, which ends the trial with no verdict.
Clancy, a 36-year-old former nurse, does not dispute that she killed her two sons and daughter in 2023 in their family home in Massachusetts. She is charged with three counts of first-degree murder.
But her lawyer argued she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time, and therefore could not distinguish right from wrong. The prosecution countered that Clancy made a calculated, intentional decision to kill them and knew right from wrong in that moment.
Reddington raised the question on Thursday of the juror in question possibly being the one holdout in Clancy being found not guilty by reason of insanity.
"I think that's probably a fair assessment here," legal analyst Jennifer Roman told the BBC. "The prosecution does carry the burden of proof on both: Was she guilty of the crimes, but also did she possess the proper state of mind? They sort of have this double burden here in this case because of the defense being not guilty by reason insanity."
This jury has several outcomes to choose from. Potential verdicts include not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter.
Jurors in Clancy's trial have signalled they are deadlocked and having a hard time coming to a unanimous decision, which is mandatory for any verdict.
In the state of Massachusetts, there are typically multiple steps before they can give up. A judge usually tries to pressure the panel to continue deliberating until there's no possible chance of a decision. We've hit two of those steps so far.
On Wednesday, Sullivan issued additional instructions, known as a Tuey-Rodriguez charge in the state. It's a last-ditch effort, encouraging the panel to consider all perspectives, and ensuring jurors are questioning and examining their own views in the case. It also instructs them to strive to come to an agreement – while maintaining their own convictions and keeping to their individual judgement and conscience.
