As jurors in the Lindsay Clancy trial pressed through a sixth day of deliberations without reaching a verdict, a message from the jury foreperson offered a glimpse into the apparent tensions unfolding behind closed doors.
The note was delivered to Judge William Sullivan on the afternoon of Sept. 3, prompting an intense sidebar with attorneys for both sides. Sullivan then held individual sidebar discussions with each of the 12 jurors, according to reports from CNN and the Associated Press.
When the judge later brought the panel back together in the jury box, he revisited his instructions on the legal standard of reasonable doubt and directed jurors to continue weighing the case.
“I want to remind you,” Sullivan told them, “that you are required to follow my instructions on the law as I gave them to you.”
After jurors returned to the deliberation room, Reddington addressed the note’s contents, saying it appeared to identify one juror accused of not cooperating with the rest of the panel.
“The court has an instruction from the foreperson of that jury that’s been working for a week now, saying that there’s one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you’ve given him or her on reasonable doubt,” he said. “I suggest, respectfully, that the soft instruction that you gave them at the sidebar, ‘Can you listen to the law as I instruct you?’ does not focus on the issue. 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 on reasonable doubt.”
“If we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it’s a shame—it’s a real shame,” Reddington continued. “That’s why I object to the court’s ruling. I request that we have further inquiry. My motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt.”
MORE STORY: What Jurors Heard in the Lindsay Clancy Trial’s Key Moments
In her response, Plymouth County prosecutor Jennifer Sprague weighed in on the situation.
“There’s no way to determine what the deliberations are, who’s correct, who’s incorrect—nor should we attempt to, because that’s part of deliberations,” she said. “I think that 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.”
In his ruling on the motion, Sullivan did not remove the juror, noting that the discharge of a member of the jury mid-deliberation is “a sensitive undertaking.”
“I don’t feel that it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations. I don’t feel it’s appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or 11,” he explained. “At this point, I’ve asked if they are able to follow my instructions. They swore earlier that they could. They’ve said at this point that they can. That was specifically addressed towards the specific question, and that’s what I’m doing.”
Jurors were later dismissed for the day and will return to court on Sept. 4 for their seventh day of deliberations.
They previously submitted two deadlock notices on Sept. 1 and Sept. 2, after which they were instructed to continue deliberations.
If jurors ultimately cannot reach a unanimous verdict, a mistrial would be declared, which would give prosecutors the opportunity to retry the case.