Lindsay Clancy Jury Hits One-Holdout Standoff on Day Six

The jury weighing Lindsay Clancy’s fate wrapped up a tense and eventful sixth day of deliberations Thursday without reaching a verdict, as a dispute over a holdout juror continued to hang over the case. Deliberations are scheduled to continue Friday.

The 12-member panel, made up of nine women and three men, has already informed the court twice that it is deadlocked. Jurors are expected back in court Friday, when Judge William Sullivan is also slated to take up the disagreement involving one juror.

Earlier in the day, Reddington asked the court to remove the juror after the foreperson said the individual was refusing to follow the judge’s instructions regarding reasonable doubt. The defense request was denied.

Reddington cautioned that the high-profile trial could conclude without a verdict, arguing that the juror had “spurned the instructions” given by the court.

Prosecutors objected to removing anyone, arguing there was no way to determine who was right or wrong without improperly examining the jury’s private deliberations. They said Sullivan had acted appropriately by questioning the jurors about whether they could follow the law and again instructing them on reasonable doubt.

Sullivan declined, calling the removal of a deliberating juror “a sensitive undertaking” and saying the court could not take sides in the jury’s deliberations.

After court, Reddington revealed that a later jury note appeared to show an 11-to-1 divide.

“When a note that the judge already has says that there are 11 jurors that have made a decision and one juror will not apply reasonable [doubt]…” Reddington said.

The note does not reveal which verdict the 11 jurors favor or how the remaining juror is leaning.

Reddington said Sullivan plans to hold an inquiry at 9 a.m. Friday. If jurors again say they cannot reach a unanimous decision, the case could end in a mistrial.

The defense attorney said he expects the arguments over the jury issue to take place in open court rather than at sidebar.

Asked whether a retrial could favor prosecutors, Reddington issued a blunt response.

“Bring it,” he said, adding that his witnesses and evidence are ready.

“I got witnesses lined up. We’re all set. Dr. Resnick is ready. I’m ready. We’ve got all our evidence. Witnesses are available, so let’s go,” Reddington said.

Reddington said prosecutors might seek to put off another trial “for six months or a year,” but indicated he would be ready to move quickly. He deferred to Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz when questioned about the possibility of a plea agreement.

“Let’s see what Mr. Cruz wants to do, and then we’ll talk about our options,” Reddington said.

Clancy, 36, faces three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her children, Cora, Dawson and Callan, who were all under the age of 6 when they were found strangled in the family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in January 2023.

She does not dispute killing them. Jurors must instead decide whether she was criminally responsible at the time.

Prosecutors argue Clancy understood what she was doing and should be held responsible for the children’s deaths. Her attorneys contend she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and could not appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions or conform her conduct to the law.

The jury is considering several possible outcomes, including first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, or not guilty.