Lindsay Clancy’s trial over the murder of her three children has collapsed after the jury was unable to come to a decision.
The Massachusetts mother, 36, is on trial for the murders of her three children: Cora, five, Dawson, three, and Callan, eight, in January 2023.
Clancy does not deny killing her children by strangling them with an exercise band in the basement of their home, but her defence claimed she was in a state of postpartum psychosis when the crimes took place, and therefore was not criminally responsible for her actions.
The prosecution says that, while there was no doubt Clancy was suffering from depression, she still made a calculated decision to kill her children.
Judge William Sullivan read the jury note aloud this afternoon: ‘It is with a heavy heart that we cannot come to a decision and will not be able to.’
After almost six weeks, over 80 witnesses, and 35 hours of deliberation, the deadlocked jury of nine women and three men still cannot reach a unanimous decision on how to convict Clancy.
In order to convict a defendant in the United States, juries must reach a unanimous decision.
Shortly after reading the jury’s note, Judge Sullivan declared a mistrial, to the dismay of those in the courtroom.
Clancy appeared ‘crestfallen’ after the announcement, reporters in the room observed.
Clancy’s lawyer is set to appeal the mistrial to the Supreme Court of Massachusetts – with a deadline of an hour, Judge Sullivan said.
What happens now?
Clancy’s lawyer has an hour to appeal the mistrial ruling. If his appeal is denied, the prosecution can restart the trial with a brand new jury, or Clancy could enter a plea agreement to avoid going through trial again.
Given the severity of the crimes, the prosecution is most likely to push for a retrial. Clancy would remain in a mental health facility until the new trial begins.
What to know about the jury’s decision – or lack of one
Earlier this week, the jury forewoman sent the judge a note saying one juror would not follow the judge’s instructions on reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt is a legal term that refers to the lack of evidence proving the guilt of a criminal defendant.
This led to Clancy’s defence attorney, Kevin Reddington, requesting that the juror who reportedly could not agree with the other 11 be removed, reportedly leading to audible gasps in the courtroom.
However, the judge promptly denied the removal request.
The defence attorney told reporters that the one holdout on the jury ‘refuses to listen to the law on reasonable doubt.’
However, Judge Sullivan told Reddington in the courtroom: ‘I don’t feel it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations.’
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.