Bombshell Jury Standoff Rocks Triple Murder Trial

Liberty Check

• Jury deadlocked in high-profile triple murder case, with 11-to-1 split reportedly preventing verdict
• Defense attorney claims one juror refuses to follow court instructions on reasonable doubt, threatening entire trial
• Case could end in mistrial as judge weighs unprecedented jury intervention Friday morning

The jury deliberating the fate of Lindsay Clancy in a triple murder case ended a dramatic sixth day Thursday without reaching a verdict, as a bombshell dispute over a single holdout juror threatens to derail the entire proceeding. Deliberations are set to resume Friday, when Judge William Sullivan will address what the defense is calling a constitutional crisis in the jury room.

The panel of nine women and three men has twice reported being deadlocked. Earlier Thursday, defense attorney Kevin Reddington made an aggressive move to remove a juror after the foreperson reported that one member was refusing to follow the court’s instructions on reasonable doubt.

Reddington warned that the case could end without a verdict because of a juror who had “spurned the instructions” of the court. After the hearing, he revealed evidence of what appears to be an 11-to-1 divide among the jurors.

“When a note that the judge already has says that there are 11 jurors that have made a decision and one juror will not apply reasonable [doubt]…” Reddington said.

The note does not reveal which verdict the 11 jurors favor or how the remaining juror is leaning, leaving both sides in limbo as the constitutional implications of the standoff become clear.

Prosecutors objected to removing anyone, arguing there was no way to determine who was right or wrong without improperly examining the jury’s private deliberations. They said Sullivan had acted appropriately by questioning the jurors about whether they could follow the law and again instructing them on reasonable doubt.

Sullivan declined the defense’s request, calling the removal of a deliberating juror “a sensitive undertaking” and saying the court could not take sides in the jury’s deliberations. But the judge scheduled a special inquiry for 9 a.m. Friday to address the escalating situation.

Reddington said he expects the arguments over the jury issue to take place in open court rather than at sidebar. If jurors again say they cannot reach a unanimous decision, the case could end in a mistrial, raising the prospect of starting the entire process over from scratch.

Asked whether a retrial could favor prosecutors, Reddington issued a blunt response:

“Bring it.”

He added that his witnesses and evidence are ready for immediate deployment.

“I got witnesses lined up. We’re all set. Dr. Resnick is ready. I’m ready. We’ve got all our evidence. Witnesses are available, so let’s go,” Reddington said.

The defense attorney suggested prosecutors might seek to delay another trial “for six months or a year,” but indicated he would push for a quick resolution. He deferred to Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz when questioned about the possibility of a plea agreement.

“Let’s see what Mr. Cruz wants to do, and then we’ll talk about our options,” Reddington said.

Clancy, 36, faces three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her children, Cora, Dawson and Callan, who were all under the age of 6 when they were found strangled in the family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in January 2023. She does not dispute killing them.

Jurors must decide whether she was criminally responsible at the time. Prosecutors argue Clancy understood what she was doing and should be held responsible for the children’s deaths.

Her attorneys contend she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and could not appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions or conform her conduct to the law.

The jury is considering several possible outcomes, including first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, or not guilty. The wide range of options has only intensified the pressure on a jury system now under scrutiny for how it handles deadlock and dissent.

The Constitution must be defended.