Clancy Jury Deadlocks 2 Times in 6 Days; Holdout Fight Looms

For criminal defense and prosecution teams alike, the Clancy trial is now a masterclass in jury-management procedure under extreme pressure. When a foreperson's note surfaces mid-deliberations alleging a juror refuses to apply the reasonable-doubt standard, the judge faces competing duties: protect the defendant's right to an impartial, unanimous jury without invading the secrecy of deliberations. The defense's demand for an on-the-record inquiry — not a sidebar — signals an appellate strategy as much as a trial tactic.

The Lindsay Clancy murder trial entered its most procedurally fraught phase on September 3, 2026, when Judge William Sullivan sent a deadlocked jury home after a sixth day of deliberations in Plymouth Superior Court — but not before a foreperson's note surfaced alleging that a single juror would not follow the court's instructions on reasonable doubt. The development transformed a criminal-responsibility trial into a live test of how far a judge may go to break an impasse without coercing a verdict or invading the secrecy of jury deliberations.

“

Insanity defenses succeed in well under 1% of felony trials nationally, so Reddington's path to acquittal is steep; a hung jury would nonetheless count as a partial defense victory, because a deadlock produces a mistrial rather than a conviction.

Clancy, a 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse, does not dispute strangling her three children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months — in the family's basement in 2023 before attempting suicide. The contest is entirely over criminal responsibility: defense attorney Kevin Reddington argues postpartum psychosis stripped her of the substantial capacity required for culpability, while prosecutors contend she knew what she was doing. Massachusetts frames the insanity defense as "lack of criminal responsibility" under the McHoul standard, which asks whether a mental disease or defect left the defendant without substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of her conduct or to conform it to the law. Insanity defenses succeed in well under 1% of felony trials nationally, so Reddington's path to acquittal is steep; a hung jury would nonetheless count as a partial defense victory, because a deadlock produces a mistrial rather than a conviction.

The procedural pivot came when the foreperson's note identified a holdout juror who, in Reddington's words, "has doubt but will not listen to the judge's instructions." Sullivan brought each juror in individually, questioned them in private, reread the reasonable-doubt instruction, and declined the defense's motion to remove the juror. Under Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 20(d)(3), a deliberating juror may be discharged only if "unable to perform his duty," and courts are extraordinarily reluctant to remove a juror on the strength of a report that he or she is refusing to apply the law. A dismissal at this stage risks converting a hung jury into a coerced verdict, and appellate courts scrutinize mid-deliberation removals closely because they implicate the defendant's right to a unanimous, impartial jury.

Reddington's demand that the juror inquiry be conducted on the open record rather than in a private sidebar is a textbook preservation-of-error move. If the inquiry is held off the record and the jury ultimately convicts, an appellate challenge to the holdout's continued service becomes far harder to litigate. Reddington wants the specifics of the inquiry — the questions asked, the juror's answers, and the basis for keeping or removing the juror — captured so that any adverse ruling can be reviewed later.

Sullivan's rereading of the reasonable-doubt instruction and his directive to keep deliberating after the panel twice reported an impasse function as Massachusetts' version of an Allen charge, the Tuey-Rodriguez charge. Such instructions are lawful when they urge continued deliberation without demanding that a minority juror surrender honestly held doubts. The foreperson's note complicates matters: if the judge's Friday inquiry confirms the juror is refusing to apply the law rather than simply holding a reasonable doubt, the calculus shifts. Refusal to follow instructions is one of the few grounds on which a deliberating juror can be removed; mere disagreement with the majority is not.