Lindsay Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, referenced the Karen Read murder case during a court session on September 4, 2026, as he sought to avoid a mistrial in Clancy's case. Reddington argued that jurors may have been confused during deliberations and requested that they be polled to clarify their positions. He cited Massachusetts rules of criminal procedure, stating that a trial judge has discretion to require a jury to return a verdict on charges they have agreed upon before declaring a mistrial. Reddington noted that the jury foreperson had written that it was 'with a heavy heart' that they could not agree on a verdict.
In response, a prosecutor objected, stating that the circumstances of Clancy's case differed from those in Read's case, where jurors had reached a verdict on some charges but not others. Reddington's request followed his assertion that the jury note was unusual, and he expressed concern about the clarity of the jury's understanding of the verdict requirements.
Peter Elikann, Read's lawyer, explained that confusion among jurors in Read's first trial stemmed from whether they needed to agree on all charges. He indicated that Reddington wanted to ensure that each juror was individually questioned about their stance on each charge to confirm whether they were truly in a deadlock.
Brad Bailey, a Boston criminal defense lawyer, commented on Reddington's comparison to the Read case, emphasizing the importance of accurately interpreting jury notes before declaring a mistrial. Ultimately, the Clancy case was declared a mistrial after more than six days of deliberations due to one juror's dissenting opinion on the verdict.