Jurors tell judge with ‘heavy heart’ they cannot reach unanimous verdict
This is the note the judge read out from the jury, informing him for the third time that it could not reach a verdict:
It is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to.
Asked for their positions by the judge, the prosecution agreed it should go to a mistrial, while the defence argued for the jury to be sent back to deliberate further.
Key events
Edward Helmore
If you’re just joining us, the judge in the trial of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother accused of killing her three young children, plans to declare a mistrial after the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict and remained deadlocked after a week of deliberations.
Jurors in Plymouth state court spent more than 38 hours in deliberations over the charges against the 36-year-old mom, which came on the heels of a weeks-long trial that directed national attention to maternal mental health issues that can occur postpartum.
After the jury returned without a verdict for the third time, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial but was intercepted by a last-minute request from Clancy’s lead defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, who requested one hour to petition for an emergency stay to seek relief from a superior court judge.
Clancy, a former neonatal and delivery nurse, admits to strangling her three children – Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months – in the family’s Duxbury home in January 2023.
Prosecutors argued in opening statements that Clancy had “coldly and efficiently executed” her children, doing so with “no hesitation, with deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity and cruelty” after she “drew her husband out of the house, their father, so that she had the opportunity and the time to carry out these murders”.
But Clancy’s defense team argued she was “suffering from psychosis” when she killed her children and allegedly attempted suicide by jumping from an upper window in her home, which left her partially paralyzed. Reddington told jurors that Clancy suffered from postpartum depression after giving birth to her third child, Callan, and been prescribed a cocktail of medications.
“This is a young woman who, with her husband, tried very hard to get the help she needed,” he said.
Clancy has not denied that she had killed her children but her not guilty plea was predicated on a lack of criminal responsibility because, as her defense team said, she was suffering from postpartum psychosis, which included auditory hallucinations that commanded her to harm her children, and undiagnosed bipolar disorder.
Under Massachusetts law, the defendant must have “retained the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct and to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law” in order to be found guilty.
Throughout the trial, jurors heard from Clancy’s former husband Patrick Clancy, her mother and aunt, and an array of psychologists and treating physicians. The court heard that Clancy had been prescribed 13 different medications for anxiety and sleep, which the defense said may have exacerbated her symptoms of depression.
Clancy had checked herself into psychiatric clinic in the weeks before the killings. Later, on 24 January 2023, she had sent her then husband out for food and to collect pharmacy medications. In that time, police say she strangled their children with exercise bands. Her ability to orchestrate a window of time to carry out the killings, prosecutors argued, was evidence of premeditation.
Before resting his case last week, Reddington called forensic psychiatrist Dr Phillip Resnick to testify that Clancy had “severe depression” and a history of anxiety, which increased after the birth of her children to the point that she “felt she couldn’t function”.
“At the time of the crime on Jan 24, 2023, Ms Clancy was frankly psychotic,” Resnick said. “She was clearly psychotic on that day.”
After the potential declaration of Clancy’s mistrial, prosecutors have the option of trying her again.
Clancy’s criminal trial will be followed by a civil claim brought by both Lindsay and Patrick Clancy against her medical and mental healthcare providers. The former couple claim the providers committed medical malpractice by failing to properly diagnose, treat and monitor her severe postpartum psychiatric condition.
A recap of the trial
We’re minutes away from getting the judge’s final decision on whether he will go ahead and declare a mistrial, as the hour he gave the defense to file an emergency appeal is almost over.
Here’s a quick recap of the trial, which has shocked, saddened and divided the country.
-
Closing arguments ended last Thursday in the trial of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother who admitted killing her three young children – Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months – in January 2023. Her attempt to kill herself after killing the children left her with spinal injuries that paralyzed her from the waist down. Clancy pleaded not guilty to three counts of first-degree murder due to lack of criminal responsibility, also known as an insanity defense. She faced life in prison if convicted. The tragic case has sparked a national conversation about the state of postpartum mental healthcare in the United States.
-
The charges up for consideration were first-degree murder, which involves “deliberate premeditation” or “extreme atrocity or cruelty” and is punishable by life in prison without the possibility of parole, or second-degree murder, without either of those conditions, punishable by life in prison with the possibility of parole. They also considered lesser manslaughter charges, which is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. If they had found Clancy not guilty, she could have spent the rest of her life in hospital, with the eventual possibility of release at a later time if the court determined she was not a danger to others.
-
Jurors began deliberating last Thursday on whether to accept her insanity defense, but, almost 40 hours on, they have now declared three times that they could not reach a unanimous decision. A jury note indicated that jurors were split 11-1 toward an acquittal but a holdout juror “has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict”. The prosecution argued this indicated a disagreement among jurors over how to weigh the evidence, while the defense argued the juror had “lied” when they swore to the judge to properly follow the law. But the judge ultimately declined to question the juror further or have them removed.
-
After the jury declared today that, “with a heavy heart”, it still cannot “and will not be able to” reach a verdict, the judge said he intends to declare a mistrial. That has now been thrown into limbo after the defense asked for an emergency stay from Massachusetts’s highest court. The judge gave him one hour. We’ll bring you the latest as that unfolds.
-
At the heart of what has been called America’s saddest murder trial is Clancy’s mental health following the birth of her third child. Her defense, led by attorney Kevin Reddington, argued that Clancy should not be held criminally responsible for killing her children because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis – a devastating condition estimated to affect around two women per 1,000 births. He called Clancy “a darn good mother” and argued that she received “lousy” medical care when she sought help for her deteriorating mental state. She was in “the depths of despair” when she killer her children, he argued, and was compelled to kill them and herself by a persistent male voice during a spell of psychosis.
-
Prosecutors, meanwhile, argued that Clancy “deliberately and meticulously” killed her children, and acted “intentionally, rationally, and swiftly”. Prosecutors acknowledged Clancy’s mental health struggles but in its closing statement argued that Clancy was a “functioning mom” who knew “right and wrong”. The prosecution pointed to the medical resources and treatment available to her, and also downplayed the severity of Clancy’s suicide attempt. She put a level of planning into the killings that indicates she was not psychotic, they argued.
What happens if there is a mistrial?
If a mistrial is declared, the prosecution could decide to pursue a retrial and try again with a new jury, or they could offer a plea deal to Lindsay Clancy’s attorney. They could also decide to drop the case.
When asked on Wednesday about the prospect of a retrial, Clancy’s lawyer Kevin Reddington had said he was prepared to “try the case next week”.
If a new trial is declared, in the meantime, Clancy would remain in the psychiatric facility she’s been held in.
After the judge read out the note from the jury, prosecutors expressed they were in favour of a mistrial, whereas Lindsay Clancy’s attorney Kevin Reddington had asked the judge to send jurors back to continue deliberating.
In asking the judge to hold off on formally declaring a mistrial, Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington said he wanted to file an appeal directly to the Massachusetts supreme judicial court regarding the apparent holdout juror.
“I believe that this is a situation where there is a clear and present danger that this individual, for some reason … is taking a position that’s intractable regardless of proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” Reddington said.
Jurors tell judge with ‘heavy heart’ they cannot reach unanimous verdict
This is the note the judge read out from the jury, informing him for the third time that it could not reach a verdict:
It is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to.
Asked for their positions by the judge, the prosecution agreed it should go to a mistrial, while the defence argued for the jury to be sent back to deliberate further.
Earlier this week, the 12-person jury – made up of nine women and three men – came back twice to say that it could not reach a verdict and was sent back to deliberate by the judge both times.
This third declaration of deadlock comes a few hours after the judge declined to question a juror who, according to a letter from the jury foreperson on Thursday, had acknowledged doubt about the case but “refuses to listen to the law you have given on reasonable doubt”.
The judge responded by reading out the court’s guidance on reasonable doubt, telling jurors on Thursday:
The charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after you’ve compared and considered all of the evidence, you have in your minds an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, that the charge is true.
After the defense argued for the juror’s removal for failing to “listen to the law on reasonable doubt”, the judge declined, saying there was no indication that the juror was refusing to deliberate.
He reminded the jury this morning that they must follow the law “whether they like it or not”.
This dramatic turn of events, as the judge was about to declare a mistrial and call the jury back in, comes after Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, asked for an emergency stay.
The judge, William Sullivan, has given him one hour to do so.
Maya Yang
The jury was sent out over a week ago to decide whether the 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse is criminally responsible for fatally strangling her three children – eight-month old Callan, five-year-old Cora and three-year-old Dawson – in January 2023.
Over the past six weeks, the trial, which has been called “America’s saddest murder trial”, has renewed nationwide attention on postpartum mental healthcare. Clancy’s defense maintains that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis – a condition estimated to affect around two women per 1,000 births – and therefore should not be held criminally responsible for her actions.
Prosecutors from the Plymouth county district attorney’s office, meanwhile, argue that Clancy’s actions were planned and deliberate.
Judge says he will hold off on declaring a mistrial, giving defense an hour to file emergency appeal
The judge has said he has no choice but to declare a mistrial after the jury remained deadlocked on whether Lindsay Clancy is criminally responsible for killing her three young children.
He was about to bring the jury back into the courtroom after jurors, after almost 40 hours of deliberation, said in a note on Friday that “with a heavy heart” it could not reach a unanimous decision.
However, the judge said he will hold off on formally declaring a mistrial to give the defense an hour to file an emergency appeal.
We’ll bring you all the latest updates as we get them.
About the Author
