Defense has one hour to prevent mistrial in Lindsay Clancy murder trial

Lindsay Clancy's defense was given one hour for a last-ditch effort to avoid a mistrial after the jurors in the high-profile murder trial reported Friday an ongoing deadlock for the third consecutive day. The Massachusetts mother was accused of strangling her three children in the family's Duxbury home in 2023. Jurors began their deliberations on the afternoon of Aug. 27. After a third note indicating that they were deadlocked and could not come to a unanimous decision, Judge William Sullivan said he would be declaring a mistrial. "It is with a heavy heart that we report, we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to," the note read. However, before the jurors were brought back into the court, defense attorney Kevin Reddington requested an emergency stay and asked to bring the case before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Sullivan gave Reddington one hour to bring the case to a justice of the state's highest court. Video below: Lindsay Clancy's defense given 1 hour for attempt to block mistrial After a previous note about a deadlock, Sullivan delivered a special instruction that urged them to keep working and suggested there is no reason to believe a different jury would have an easier time reaching consensus. On Thursday afternoon, the jury sent a third note that prompted Sullivan to call each of them up to the sidebar individually. After questioning each member, the judge reiterated his instructions about the meaning of reasonable doubt to the entire jury and sent them to continue working. Before deliberations resumed Friday, Sullivan addressed the note, which indicated that a juror has "made statements acknowledging doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states." Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague argued that the juror should not be questioned, while defense attorney Kevin Reddington suggested that the juror lied under oath and asked for the juror to be removed from the panel. Sullivan ruled the juror would remain on the panel, and deliberations resumed after the group was again told to follow the law -- "whether they agree with it or not." The jurors were tasked with deciding if Clancy, 36, was criminally responsible for killing 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan. Choices on the verdict slip were first-degree murder, second-degree murder or manslaughter. Jurors could have also decided that she is not guilty or not guilty because she was not criminally responsible due to her mental health. Clancy's defense argued that she was not criminally responsible for the killings because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis. It is the burden of the prosecution to overcome the lack of criminal responsibility defense, also known as the insanity defense. According to Massachusetts guidance, the defendant must have "retained the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct and to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law" in order to be found guilty. https://infogram.com/wcvb-clancy-experiment-1h0r6rzqq7k1l4e