Judge to Question Juror in Lindsay Clancy's Triple-Murder Trial

<p>The juror accused of holding up a verdict in Lindsay Clancy’s triple-murder trial will face further questioning from Judge William Sullivan at 9 a.m. Friday, defense attorney Kevin Reddington said Thursday.</p><p>“So the juror has been identified by the note from the foreperson. And there will be an interview by the judge tomorrow at 9 o'clock. I don't know what his question is going to be yet,” Reddington said, adding that the issue will likely be addressed in open court rather than at a sidebar.</p><p>This development comes amid a trial that has drawn national attention and sparked debate over the role of mental illness, specifically postpartum psychosis, in determining criminal responsibility.</p><p>Clancy is on trial for fatally strangling her three children: 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan.</p><p>Tensions escalated late Thursday when the foreperson sent Sullivan a note alleging that one juror was refusing to follow the judge’s instructions on reasonable doubt. The panel of nine women and three men remained deadlocked after more than 35 hours of deliberations.</p><p>The note prompted a heated sidebar involving Sullivan, the defense, and the prosecution. Reporters in the courtroom noted that Clancy’s attorney appeared visibly angry and frustrated.</p><p>In an unusual moment, Reddington wheeled Clancy over to the sidebar so she could hear the discussion. “She has a right to know what’s going on,” Reddington said. “If it’s not going to be in open court, the judge said I could bring her up so she could hear.”</p><p>Sullivan then brought the jurors into the courtroom one by one and asked whether they could follow his instructions. He later brought the entire jury back into the courtroom and explained the meaning of reasonable doubt before ordering them to return to deliberations.</p><p>“I want to remind you that you are required to follow my instructions on the law as I gave them to you,” Sullivan told the jury. “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt.”</p><p>Reddington requested that the juror accused of disregarding the instructions be removed and replaced with an alternate. Sullivan denied the request, stating he could not determine which side of the jury room dispute was correct.</p><p>“I don’t feel that it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations,” Sullivan said, according to CBS Boston. “I don’t feel it’s appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or the 11.”</p><p>Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague opposed the removal of the juror, arguing that Sullivan had responded appropriately by questioning each member of the panel.</p><p>“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,” she said.</p><p>This dispute is significant because Massachusetts imposes a unique burden on the prosecution when a defendant raises an insanity defense. Under Massachusetts law, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane and criminally responsible at the time of the crime.</p><p>Clancy's defense team argues that postpartum psychosis left her unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions.</p><p>It remains unclear how the jury is divided or which verdict the 11 jurors have reportedly selected. That information will not be disclosed unless the jury reaches a verdict or the court declares a mistrial.</p><p>Reddington stated that the foreperson's note indicated that 11 jurors had reached a decision while one juror was refusing to apply the reasonable doubt standard.</p><p>“A note that the judge already has says there are 11 jurors that have made a decision and one juror will not apply reasonable doubt,” Reddington said.</p><p>When asked about the possibility of a mistrial, Reddington dismissed the idea.</p><p>“I don’t want a mistrial. Why would I want a mistrial? I kicked the sh*t out of their case,” he told reporters.</p><p>Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse, has admitted to strangling her children with exercise bands in 2023 inside the family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts, home. Her defense team contends that the medical system failed her and that postpartum psychosis rendered her not criminally responsible for her actions.</p><p>The jury is considering several possible outcomes, including first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, not guilty by reason of insanity, or acquittal. The jury must reach a unanimous verdict.</p><p>If convicted of first-degree murder, Clancy faces life in prison without the possibility of parole. In the event of a mistrial or insanity-based acquittal, Clancy is expected to remain in a state-run psychiatric hospital for the foreseeable future. A mistrial would leave the criminal case unresolved and could result in another trial.</p><p>Sullivan dismissed the jury for the day Thursday. The jurors are scheduled to return Friday morning, when the proceedings regarding the lone holdout are expected to continue.</p>