Updated September 5, 2026 — 9:52am,first published 4:56am
You have reached your maximum number of saved items.
New York: The judge in the triple murder trial of Massachusetts woman Lindsay Clancy has declared a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict after nearly a week of deliberations.
Clancy strangled her three children in 2023 in a case that has generated intense interest across the US and divided the country over mental illness and the 36-year-old’s criminal culpability.
That Clancy killed her children – the youngest of whom was just eight months old – was not in doubt. But her lawyers argued she was suffering a rare and dangerous condition called postpartum psychosis, which can afflict new mothers, and was overmedicated.
The jury in Plymouth, Massachusetts had previously advised they were struggling to reach a unanimous verdict. Judge William Sullivan had instructed them to keep deliberating.
But on Friday morning (US time), the jury returned a note to the judge: “It is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to.”
Sullivan said he had no option but to declare a mistrial, which was also the position of the prosecution. Clancy’s lawyer Kevin Reddington initially argued the jury should be sent back to deliberate further, and then requested a poll of the jury to see whether they had formed a unanimous verdict on any charges.
That would lay the groundwork for a claim of double jeopardy on those charges.
When that was denied, Reddington asked for – and was granted – an extra hour to lodge an emergency appeal for a stay from the Massachusetts Supreme Court. That court denied the request.
Confirming the mistrial, Sullivan thanked the jury and invoked Winston Churchill’s famous Their Finest Hour speech, in which the wartime leader asked Britons to “brace ourselves to our duties”.
The Clancy case will return to court on September 29. A mistrial means the case can be retried with a different jury.
Prosecutors argued Clancy knew what she was doing. They contended the then-mother-of-three deliberately sent her then-husband on errands to get him out of the house before killing her children, and questioned the seriousness of her subsequent suicide attempt.
But it appeared the jury was deadlocked from early on. On Thursday, the foreman told the judge there was one juror who would not follow the court’s instructions about reasonable doubt. It raised the prospect of a single juror standing in the way of a verdict.
Reddington argued the court had the authority to intervene in circumstances where a juror was “holding out”, not acting in good faith and “refusing to apply the law” – asserting the juror was refusing to join their peers in acquitting Clancy. But the judge again denied that request.
