The Lindsay Clancy murder trial entered a seventh day of jury deliberations in Massachusetts on Friday after a judge rejected an attempt by the defence to remove an alleged holdout juror.
The jury is understood to be split 11-1 after more than 35 hours of discussions, although it has not been publicly confirmed which side the majority supports. Defence lawyer Kevin Reddington has said he believes the division favours an acquittal.
The dispute centres on whether one juror is refusing to apply the judge’s instructions on reasonable doubt. The jury’s foreperson raised the issue in a note to Plymouth Superior Court Judge William Sullivan on Thursday.
Judge refuses request to dismiss juror
Mr Reddington asked Judge Sullivan to question the juror again and remove them from the panel, allowing one of six alternates to take their place and forcing deliberations to restart.
During a brief hearing on Friday morning, the lawyer accused the juror of lying under oath and argued that they were not following the law. Judge Sullivan rejected the request.
“I’m not going to do a further inquiry of this juror,” he said. “It’s their duty to accept the law as I’ve given it to them.”
When Mr Reddington argued that the judge had not been forceful enough when repeating the instructions, Judge Sullivan replied: “What do you want me to do? Get a brass band?”
He added: “I read the instruction as written by the SJC (Supreme Judicial Court). The fact that I perhaps didn’t give it my full inflection, I’m sorry about that. I’m not an actor. I’m just giving the instructions.”
The 12-member panel, made up of nine women and three men, returned to the jury room at about 9.25am local time.
Judge Sullivan had questioned jurors individually on Thursday before reminding them that the defendant is presumed innocent and that prosecutors carry the burden of proof. He also told them they must follow the law as given, whether they agreed with it or not.
Reddington said a second jury note stated that one member had acknowledged having doubts but “refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states”. The note was not read aloud in court, and the account of its wording came from the defence lawyer.
The prosecution has opposed removing the juror and wants deliberations to continue. The jury has already told the judge twice that it is unable to reach a unanimous verdict.
If the panel remains deadlocked, Judge Sullivan could declare a mistrial. Prosecutors would then have to decide whether to seek a retrial, drop the charges or pursue another resolution.
Clancy, 36, has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder over the deaths of her children, Cora, five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan at the family’s home in Duxbury on 24 January 2023.
The defence says she was not criminally responsible because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and had been overmedicated. Prosecutors argue that she planned the killings and understood the difference between right and wrong.
The jury can find Clancy not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, or guilty of first-degree murder, second-degree murder or manslaughter. A finding of insanity would not necessarily mean her release, as she could remain in a psychiatric hospital subject to periodic review.
