Extraordinary scenes in Lindsay Clancy court as judge puts mistrial ‘on hold’: Live updates
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
A mistrial has been declared in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy after the jury deadlocked for a third time, with one juror refusing to join the other 11 in acquitting her. Judge William Sullivan confirmed the mistrial after Massachusetts's Supreme Judicial Court rejected an emergency appeal from defence lawyer Kevin Reddington, who had asked the court to examine the holdout juror's fitness to deliberate; the ruling had briefly been "put on hold" while the appeal was considered. The outcome leaves prosecutors deciding whether to seek a retrial, offer a plea deal, or have the case dropped, with a hearing set for 29 September to determine next steps.
Clancy, a former labour and delivery nurse, denied murdering her three children — Cora, five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan — at the family's Duxbury home in January 2023, citing postpartum psychosis; prosecutors accepted she was mentally ill but argued she knew what she was doing. The 12-member jury, nine women and three men, deliberated for almost 38 hours across the five-week trial before reporting they could not reach a unanimous verdict. Reddington said Clancy would return to Tewksbury State Hospital, where she has been held since 2023, and suggested a new trial could come "sometime in the fall". A jury expert noted hung juries occur in roughly one in 20 criminal cases, a result partly shaped by a 2020 US Supreme Court ruling requiring unanimity in serious criminal cases.
- Sources
- 3
- Outlets
- 2
- Left · Centre · Right
- 0 · 0 · 3
In short
- Lindsay Clancy's murder trial ended in a mistrial after jury deadlock
- One holdout juror blocked an 11-1 acquittal vote
- Prosecutors must now decide on a retrial; hearing set for 29 September
How this story developed
- 2 months ago A mistrial has now been finalised in Lindsay Clancy's murder trial after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court denied defence lawyer Kevin Reddington's emergency appeal, which had sought to question the fitness of a holdout juror and briefly put Judge William Sullivan's mistrial ruling "on hold".
- 2 months ago A mistrial has been declared in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy after the jury deadlocked for a third time, with one juror refusing to join the other 11 in acquitting her.
- 2 months ago Judge William Sullivan briefly declared a mistrial in Lindsay Clancy's murder trial on Friday morning after jurors said they could not reach a unanimous verdict, before pausing that ruling when defence lawyer Kevin Reddington demanded an emergency stay to appeal.
- 2 months ago A jury deliberating in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial in Massachusetts told the court it could not reach a unanimous verdict, prompting Judge William Sullivan to declare a mistrial before dramatically pausing it after her defence lawyer launched an emergency appeal.
Full account
A murder trial against Lindsay Clancy, the former Massachusetts labour and delivery nurse accused of killing her three young children, ended without a verdict on Friday after the jury told Judge William Sullivan at Plymouth Superior Court that it could not reach a unanimous decision. The panel of twelve, made up of nine women and three men, had deliberated for roughly 38 hours across a week and had reported being deadlocked on three separate occasions before the judge accepted their note and declared a mistrial. Sullivan read the jury's message to the packed courtroom, in which they said it was 'with a heavy heart' that they were unable to agree and would not be able to do so.
Reports indicate the split stood at 11 to 1, with defence attorney Kevin Reddington arguing that the single holdout juror, widely believed to be one of the three men on the panel, had privately expressed doubt about Clancy's guilt but was refusing to apply the court's legal standard on reasonable doubt correctly. Seeking to avert a mistrial, Clancy's legal team lodged an emergency appeal with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court asking for further inquiry into that juror's reasoning. Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt rejected the request on Friday afternoon, allowing Sullivan to proceed with formally ending the trial. Clancy reportedly showed little visible reaction as the mistrial was announced, while several female jurors were seen crying in the courtroom.
Clancy, 35, had been charged with first-degree murder over the deaths of her children — five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson and eight-month-old Callan — who were strangled with exercise resistance bands at the family's home in Duxbury in January 2023. She denied the charges, with her defence resting on a claim of postpartum psychosis so severe that she could not appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions or control her conduct. Prosecutors did not dispute that Clancy suffered from mental illness but argued she nonetheless understood what she was doing, pointing to evidence they said showed deliberate planning and awareness before, during and after the killings. Her former husband, Patrick Clancy, testified during the trial about the day of the deaths, describing mundane errands — including a stop at a pharmacy and picking up dinner — while speaking to his wife by phone, unaware of what was unfolding at home.
With no verdict reached, Clancy has been neither convicted nor acquitted, and prosecutors have yet to say whether they will seek a retrial, though Sullivan indicated he would like any new trial to happen 'sooner rather than later', potentially before the end of the year. She is due back in court on 29 September for a status hearing and to address a defence motion, and will remain held at Tewksbury State Hospital under her existing bail conditions in the meantime. Outside court, Reddington thanked the jurors he described as attentive and dedicated while pointedly criticising the holdout, saying panellists felt 'robbed' of weeks of their lives. Sullivan separately ordered that jurors' identities be withheld for at least a fortnight, citing a surge of social media commentary about the case, while a statement from Patrick Clancy's lawyer thanked the jury for their service but said the prospect of a second trial, and the further pain it would bring, was almost unbearable for the family.
Where outlets differ
From the full account, which is AI-written from the sources:
The Daily Mail account leans into the emotional courtroom atmosphere — jurors crying, Clancy's blank expression, Reddington's pointed remarks about the holdout juror ('I hope that guy can sleep at night') — and gives more space to reactions after the ruling, including the order sealing juror identities and the statement from Patrick Clancy's lawyer.
Fox News's account is more procedural, detailing the legal mechanics of the case: the appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court and the justice who denied it, the legal standard prosecutors must meet once a lack-of-criminal-responsibility defence is raised, and specifics of the trial testimony and evidence.
Only Fox News specifies the alleged 11-1 jury split and the location (Plymouth Superior Court), and gives concrete detail on next steps — the 29 September status hearing, a defence Rule 25 motion, and Sullivan's comment about wanting a swift retrial.
Only the Daily Mail reports the near-38-hour deliberation figure, the panel's gender breakdown, and quotes Reddington's press-conference remarks directly.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those supporting the defence's push to pause the mistrial and continue deliberations argue that a unanimous verdict is the bedrock of criminal justice, and that after only three deadlock notes over roughly 38 hours on a case of this gravity, jurors should not be discharged until every route to consensus has been tried. They see the defence's concerns about a holdout juror possibly misunderstanding reasonable doubt, and its request for more time or individual polling, as legitimate efforts to ensure any eventual verdict is legally sound rather than rushed, particularly since a finalised mistrial could trigger irreversible double jeopardy consequences. On this view, procedural thoroughness and protecting the defendant's right to a fully tested deliberation outweigh the discomfort of prolonging an already gruelling process.
The case against
Those favouring finalisation of the mistrial argue that the jury's own words, describing with 'a heavy heart' their inability to reach unanimity after repeated deadlocks and nearly 38 hours of deliberation, should be taken as clear evidence that further pressure risks coercing a verdict rather than achieving genuine agreement. They would stress that judges have a duty to protect jurors from being pushed towards a decision they do not believe in, and that the defence's eleventh-hour emergency stay, ADA argument and request to poll jurors individually can reasonably be seen as procedural manoeuvring to avoid a straightforward retrial rather than necessities of law. On this view, respecting jury autonomy and the finality of a genuinely deadlocked panel matters more than extending an already exhaustive process.
Explained simply
Postpartum psychosis and its role in criminal cases like this rarely make headlines, so a reader would need that concept explained before the story makes sense. Let me write a neutral primer that covers the case background, the key figures, and the legal stakes without editorialising or repeating the headline's specific courtroom drama.
Lindsay Clancy is a former labour and delivery nurse from Duxbury, Massachusetts, who is on trial accused of murdering her three young children, Cora, Dawson and Callan, at the family home in January 2023. She has pleaded not guilty, with her defence arguing she was suffering from postpartum psychosis, a severe mental illness linked to childbirth, at the time. Prosecutors do not dispute that she was mentally ill but contend she still understood what she was doing, which is the key legal question the jury has had to decide.
The case has drawn wide attention both because of the nature of the crime and because it turns on complex questions about mental illness and criminal responsibility, an area of law that can be difficult for juries to apply. The judge overseeing the trial is William Sullivan, while Kevin Reddington is Clancy's defence lawyer. A 12-person jury has spent an extended period deliberating, and how they ultimately resolve the case, or fail to, will determine what happens to Clancy next.
Coverage · 3 sources
Bias meters
From 3 rated sources.
- Daily MailRightExtraordinary scenes in Lindsay Clancy court as judge puts mistrial ‘on hold’: Live updates
- Fox NewsFar rightLindsay Clancy judge calls mistrial, then grants defense one hour stay for appeal
- Fox NewsFar rightLindsay Clancy mistrial declared after jury deadlocks in killings of her three children