Judge denies request to remove juror in Lindsay Clancy murder trial

Lindsay Clancy looks at the jurors seated in the courtroom during her murder trial at Plymouth Superior Court. (Photo: AP)

A six-day deadlock in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial intensified on Thursday after Judge William Sullivan refused a defence request to remove a juror accused of failing to follow his instructions on reasonable doubt. The Massachusetts case has drawn widespread attention over the deaths of Clancy's three young children, as her defence claims that postpartum psychosis left her unable to understand the wrongfulness of her actions when the children were killed. The jury of nine women and three men had deliberated for about 35 hours and twice told Sullivan it could not reach a verdict before the dispute over the individual juror emerged. The central question before the panel is whether Clancy was criminally responsible for the killings.

Judge refuses to remove disputed juror

Before ruling on the defence request, Sullivan questioned jurors individually and again instructed the panel on the legal standard of reasonable doubt. Explaining his decision, Sullivan said the court should not choose between competing positions inside the deliberation room. “I don't feel it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations,” Sullivan said. He also said it was not for him to determine which position within the jury was correct, noting that jurors had sworn to follow the court's instructions. Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague backed Sullivan's approach, arguing that the court should not attempt to decide which side of the disagreement was right. A conviction requires a unanimous verdict based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, with prosecutors carrying the burden of establishing guilt. Clancy's lawyer, Kevin Reddington, said the dispute began with a note from the jury foreperson indicating that one juror was refusing to follow Sullivan's instruction on reasonable doubt. Sullivan did not disclose the wording of the note in open court. Reddington later described its contents, according to the BBC. The latest communication differed from the jury's earlier notes, which said the panel remained divided but did not accuse an individual juror of disregarding the judge's instructions.

Jury reported two earlier impasses

Jurors first told Sullivan on Tuesday that they had been unable to reach an agreement. He asked them to continue deliberating, citing the volume of evidence presented during the nearly six-week trial, which included more than 80 witnesses and more than 300 exhibits. The jury returned on Wednesday with another note saying it remained divided. Sullivan then gave a Tuey-Rodriguez instruction, a Massachusetts charge used when jurors report difficulty reaching a unanimous decision. It asks jurors to reconsider opposing views without abandoning an honestly held judgment merely to reach a verdict. By Thursday, the issue had shifted from whether the jury needed more time to whether the reported conduct of one juror justified removal from the panel. Reddington later described the disagreement more sharply, saying “there's one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you've given him or her on reasonable doubt.”

Jury weighs Clancy's criminal responsibility

Clancy, 36, faces three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months — at the family's home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, on January 24, 2023. The former labour and delivery nurse does not dispute that she strangled the three children in the basement of the house. The issue before jurors is whether she was criminally responsible at the time. Her defence says Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis and could not understand the wrongfulness of her actions. Prosecutors accept that Clancy had mental-health problems but argue that they did not prevent her from understanding that killing her children was wrong. Clancy later jumped from a second-floor window and was left paralysed from the waist down. Experts called by the prosecution and defence disagreed over her mental state and whether she could recognise that her actions were wrong. Jurors may convict Clancy of first-degree murder, second-degree murder or manslaughter if they find her criminally responsible. They may also acquit her or find her not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. A first-degree murder conviction carries life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. If found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, Clancy could be sent to a state psychiatric facility for evaluation and potentially remain committed if a court finds that the legal requirements for continued confinement are met.

Mistrial remains possible

If the jury again reports that it cannot reach a verdict, Sullivan could order further deliberations or declare a mistrial. If the trial ends without a verdict, prosecutors could seek a new trial, drop the charges or pursue a negotiated resolution. Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz declined on Thursday to say whether prosecutors would retry Clancy if the case ends without a verdict. The 12-member jury is due to return on Friday for a seventh day of deliberations. Reddington said Sullivan was also expected to question the disputed juror again.