The murder trial of Lindsay Clancy concluded in a mistrial Friday after the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict following deliberations that spanned more than six days. One juror reportedly held out, seeking a conviction.
During the proceedings, Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, made a final effort to persuade the judge to avoid declaring a mistrial. Reddington referenced the high-profile Karen Read murder case, suggesting potential jury confusion during deliberations. He argued that jurors might not have understood whether they needed to agree on all charges or if a partial agreement was permissible, citing a similar situation in the first trial of Karen Read.
Reddington requested that the jury be polled individually on each charge to ascertain if a true deadlock had been reached. He pointed to an unusual note from the jury foreperson, which stated it was "with a heavy heart" that they could not reach an agreement. This note, he contended, suggested a level of uncertainty that warranted further inquiry.
Prosecutors objected to the comparison with the Karen Read case, noting that in that instance, a verdict had been reached on some charges but not others. Legal experts suggested that Reddington's reference was a cautionary measure, emphasizing the need for clarity and certainty before a judge declares a mistrial, especially when jury notes are ambiguous.
Karen Read was ultimately acquitted of second-degree murder and manslaughter in her second trial in June 2025, though she was convicted of operating under the influence. She had been accused of killing her Massachusetts police officer boyfriend with her SUV after a night of drinking.