The murder trial of Lindsay Clancy reached a critical juncture Thursday when the jury's foreperson sent a note to the judge stating that one juror was not following the law regarding reasonable doubt. This development led Judge William Sullivan to dismiss the jury for the day and initiated a tense exchange in the courtroom.
Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, directly addressed the court, expressing frustration and requesting the removal of the juror. He argued that a "soft instruction" from the judge was insufficient and that the situation could lead to a mistrial if the juror continued to disregard the court's legal directives. "I suggest respectfully that the soft instruction that you gave them, saying at the sidebar, 'Can you listen to the law as I instruct you?' does not focus on the issue," Reddington stated. "The question is not sufficient enough. It does not allow any foundation for a motion to remove the juror who refuses to accept your instructions on the law."
To address the note, Judge Sullivan individually questioned each juror to ascertain their ability to adhere to the law on reasonable doubt, to which all reportedly affirmed they could. He then reiterated his instructions on the burden of proof, emphasizing that the Commonwealth must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that any remaining reasonable doubt entitles the defendant to an acquittal.
The jury, comprised of nine women and three men, has deliberated for 35 hours over whether Clancy is guilty of murder, manslaughter, or not criminally responsible for her actions. The panel remains deadlocked, and no verdict has been reached.
Clancy, 36, stands accused of murdering her three children—Cora, five; Dawson, three; and eight-month-old Callan—at their Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in 2023. She has admitted to the killings but entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, attributing her actions to postpartum psychosis exacerbated by medication. Prosecutors contend the killings were premeditated, while the defense argues they were the result of a severe mental health crisis.
The prosecution, represented by Jennifer Sprague, argued that the judge's instructions on reasonable doubt were adequate and that attempting to probe the specifics of jury deliberations would be inappropriate. "There's no way to determine what the deliberations are, who's correct, who's incorrect, nor should we attempt to, because that is part of deliberations," Sprague said. "I think what Your Honor has done, by asking each juror if they're able to follow the law and then giving a general instruction on reasonable doubt, is appropriate."
Judge Sullivan acknowledged the sensitivity of juror dismissal, noting, "I’m sure the parties understand that the discharge of a deliberating juror is a sensitive undertaking." He concluded that he could not take sides in the internal deliberations or definitively agree with one juror over others, as each had previously sworn to follow his instructions. The jury is expected to resume deliberations at a later date.