Lindsay Clancy trial: Defence asks judge to remove juror after six days of deliberations
An extraordinary courtroom development has emerged as the jury remains deadlocked over the fate of the mother accused of killing her three children.
A dramatic new development has emerged in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial, with her defence attorney asking the judge to remove a juror over claims that they are refusing to follow instructions on reasonable doubt.
Clancy’s attorney Kevin Reddington told Judge William Sullivan on Thursday he wanted the juror removed, warning the dispute could potentially lead to a mistrial.
“My motion is to remove this juror who refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt,” Mr Reddington said, according to The Washington Post.
Sign up to The Nightly's newsletters.
Get the first look at the digital newspaper, curated daily stories and breaking headlines delivered to your inbox.
By continuing you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy.The judge had brought jurors into court one by one after they sent him a note earlier in the day, asking each to affirm they were able to follow the law.
Mr Sullivan then reminded them of the legal standard for reasonable doubt and instructed them they were required to follow his directions.
Mr Reddington argued simply reading the instructions was not enough and pressed for the juror to be discharged.
Prosecutors said the judge’s approach was appropriate, while Sullivan described removing a deliberating juror as a “sensitive undertaking”.
“I don’t feel that it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations,” Mr Sullivan said.
The jury was dismissed for the day and is due to return Friday for a seventh day of deliberations.
Jurors in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial have been deliberating for six days in Plymouth, Massachusetts after twice saying they can’t agree whether the former labour and delivery nurse is criminally responsible for killing her three young children.
If jurors ultimately cannot agree on a verdict, Judge William Sullivan could declare a mistrial.
Mr Reddington argued Clancy killed her children while experiencing postpartum psychosis exacerbated by “lousy medical care.” Prosecutors argued she intentionally planned the killings and said the nation’s health care system was “not on trial.”
Postpartum psychosis is estimated to afflict 1 to 2 per 1,000 women after delivery.
Experts at the Cleveland Clinic describe it as a mental health emergency affecting someone’s sense of reality. It can happen to anyone after giving birth, but the chances are higher for people with certain mental health conditions. Though most people with postpartum psychosis don’t harm their children, mothers with severe cases may try to do so and may also try to harm themselves.
Clancy, 36, doesn’t deny strangling her children in the basement of their home in 2023. Her attorney argues that postpartum psychosis led to her actions, while prosecutors say she knew what she was doing when she killed Cora, Dawson and Callan Clancy, ages 5, 3 and 8 months.
Just before jurors entered the courtroom Thursday with their eyes to the floor, Clancy took a deep breath at the defence table.
A murder conviction could bring a life sentence. A not guilty verdict could result in Clancy’s continued confinement at a psychiatric hospital.
The split among the jury in terms of guilty or not guilty has not been disclosed after jurors informed the judge for a second time on Wednesday that they were still unable to reach a verdict.
The judge told jurors to keep deliberating — a sign there’s a growing chance of a hung jury and the trial ending without a resolution.
If a verdict cannot be reached, a mistrial will be declared, and the case essentially goes back to the same status as before the trial, with Clancy charged with murder and held at a psychiatric hospital awaiting a resolution of the criminal case.
Prosecutors will decide whether to try again with a new jury. If they do, the jury selection process will begin again, and a new trial will be scheduled.
Prosecutors could also offer a plea deal to Clancy, said Brad Bailey, a Boston defence attorney and former prosecutor who is not involved in the case.
“Any time the threat of a retrial with murder one hanging over the client is re-interjected, defence lawyers will, at the very least, explore whether or not there’s any interest in a resolution,” Mr Bailey said.
More to come...
