Lindsay Clancy trial’s most dramatic day yet ends with ANOTHER deadlock after one juror is called out for ‘not following the law’

The Lindsay Clancy murder trial’s most dramatic day yet ended with her lawyer calling out one of the deliberating jurors for refusing to follow the law.

Judge William Sullivan dismissed the jury for the day on Thursday after the foreperson sent a note saying one of the 12 jurors was not following the law on reasonable doubt.

Clancy was then wheeled up to the judge’s bench by her attorney, Kevin Reddington, and watched, along with the prosecution, as the judge asked each juror, one by one, whether they could follow the law on reasonable doubt. It sounded like they all said yes.

Sullivan then reminded the jury of his instructions on reasonable doubt and ordered them to continue deliberations.

‘You are required to follow my instructions on the law as I gave them to you,’ he said.

‘Reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges made against her.

‘If you evaluate all the evidence and you still have a reasonable doubt remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be acquitted.’

Reddington then revealed that one holdout juror is holding up the verdict in a courtroom outburst.

‘The court has an instruction from the foreperson of that jury who’s been working for a week now, saying that there’s one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you’ve given him or her on reasonable doubt,’ Reddington said, growing animated.

‘I suggest respectfully that the soft instruction that you gave them, saying at the sidebar, “Can you listen to the law as I instruct you?” does not focus on the issue. The question is not sufficient enough. It does not allow any foundation for a motion to remove the juror who refuses to accept your instructions on the law.

‘If we come back here in a half hour with a mistrial because a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it’s a shame.

He then demanded that the juror to be removed. 

The panel of 12, nine women and three men, has now deliberated for 35 hours to determine whether Clancy is guilty of murder, manslaughter or not criminally responsible for her actions.

They are still deadlocked, and a verdict has not been given. 

Clancy, 36, is on trial for the murders of her three children, Cora, five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan, at her home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in 2023.

She admitted to killing her children but pleaded not guilty to murder by reason of insanity, citing postpartum psychosis as a result of overmedication.

During the five weeks of testimony, prosecutors argued the killings were intentional and well planned, not the work of someone who had lost control.

The jury has not been sequestered during their deliberations.

Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague insisted the judge’s instructions on reasonable doubt were sufficient.

‘We have the note from the jury. There’s no way to determine what the deliberations are, who’s correct, who’s incorrect, nor should we attempt to, because that is part of deliberations,’ she said.

‘I think what Your Honor has done, by asking each juror if they’re able to follow the law and then giving a general instruction on reasonable doubt, is appropriate.’

Judge Sullivan noted the defense’s motion and acknowledged that removing a juror is a ‘sensitive undertaking.’

‘I’m sure the parties understand that the discharge of a deliberating juror is a sensitive undertaking,’ Sullivan said.

‘I was just specifically responding to the specific question that was asked. I don’t feel that it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations. I don’t feel it’s appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or the 11.

‘At this point, I’ve asked if they are able to follow my instructions; they swore earlier that they could.’