With jury deadlocked, judge declares a mistrial in Lindsay Clancy's murder case

0:00The judge has declared a mistrial in the case of Lindsey Clancy. This is the Massachusetts woman who's been charged with murdering her three young children in 2023. At this point, I'm going to declare that the jury is deadlocked and I'm going to declare a mistrial. After a week of deliberations, jurors said that one member was a holdout. And today, Clancy's lawyer asked the Massachusetts State Supreme Court to remove that juror that did not happen. Deborah Becker from Member Station WBUR has been covering this trial and Plymouth, Massachusetts, and joins us now with more. Hi, Deb. Hello. So tell us more about what happened in the courtroom today, leading up to the judge declaring this mistrial. I mean, it sounds like there was a bit of drama. Yeah, there was a lot of drama actually. And these jurors, we should say, have been deliberating for about 36 hours. When Judge William Sullivan said he was going to declare a mistrial initially this morning, Lindsey Clancy's attorney asked for an emergency stay.

1:01Defense attorney Kevin Reddington asked to have one juror removed. He said to jury four person had reported that one holdout juror of the 12 would not follow the law. And that was what was preventing a unanimous decision. So Massachusetts, I scored held an emergency hearing this afternoon, but eventually denied the defense request. And then the judge called a mistrial. And you know, it was really emotional. Many of the jurors were visibly upset. Some dabbed their eyes or covered their faces. And Judge Sullivan thanked them for their work during the seven weeks of this trial. I watched every day, day after day, week after week. All of you performing that duty that you're braced for. And it was tense throughout the day. Everyone was expecting this verdict. So the courthouse was super crowded. Spectators had to go to an overflow room that was set up. And of course, it was full of media today. Yeah. So much build up.

2:05So explain what happens when a judge declares a mistrial. They could theoretically start all over again, right? They could. The district attorney has to decide if there will be another trial. And whether it'll be on the same charges, Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz says he hasn't decided yet. Said no announcement is going to happen today. But he did say his office is charged with seeking justice for the three children that Lindsey Clancy admitted that she killed in 2023. This was and has always been about getting justice for those three little babies. And Cruz said he realizes that a lot of important issues were raised in this trial, such as the difficulties getting adequate postpartamental health care. But he said his office's job is to prosecute crimes. And that sediment actually was brought up during the prosecution's closing arguments. And you know, I contacted criminal defense attorney David Nathanson, who's not involved in this case. And he expects that if

3:10there is a second trial, Cruz would have to handle it differently. They brought all the vast resources of the state to bear on this woman. And they still weren't able to secure a conviction. And I know that Lindsey Clancy's defense lawyer has been pretty aggressive throughout this case. I'm curious how did he react to all of this? Yeah. Well, he said that he was, you know, really ready for another trial. And he said, you know, that it's likely that it will go, that it will go forward again. And but he said this has really been difficult for Clancy. It's not right when she had to go through it because she grieves the loss of those three children. And Clancy remains held in the state hospital pending next steps in this legal process. There's been a lot of legal back and forth and a lot of tension in the Lindsey Clancy trial, all overseen by Judge William Sullivan. After declaring that mistrial, he thanked the jury for their service by referencing a quote from Winston Churchill. You know how difficult the case was going to be

4:13to listen to facts wise, but still you brace for that duty. Judge Sullivan himself also braced for that duty. So for some insight into his role and choices, we are joined by Nancy Gertner. She's a former federal judge now at Harvard Law School Judge Gertner. Thanks for joining us. It's good to be here. I'm hoping as best as you can, you can get us inside the head of Judge Sullivan. If you had gotten that note from the jury this morning that they were deadlocked for the third time, what would you be thinking if you were presiding over this case? Well, it wasn't just the deadlock. They had said multiple times that they were deadlocked. It was when the four persons said that one juror, according to the reporting, quote, refuses to listen to the law. And at that point what the judge did, which I would have done as well, is he he brought all the jurors in this, I think was yesterday and he he talked to each of them individually at Sidebar. One would hope to somehow shake off more

5:14information than just refuse to follow the listen to the law. In other words, have someone say, here's what this person said or this person said, I don't care about judges instructions or something. So he had a personal conversation with each juror at Sidebar. And then he turned to the jury and redid his reasonable doubt instructions. That didn't affect anyone that didn't, no one came forward. There was nothing more information that he had than refuses to listen to the law. Today he gave another instruction in which he said, you have to follow my rules even if you disagree with him. Yeah. So the problem at that point is refusing to listen to the law could mean I'm not going to follow the law. Could mean I have some doubts, but they're not reasonable. I mean, I think it is ambiguous and it's fraught when you have to knock off a deliberating juror and he was cautious about not doing that. That's when I'm wondering though, what is the best argument

6:14against taking that step if it was really one person and a matter of not wanting to follow the clear instructions? Why not just remove the juror and replace them? Well, because I mean 11 to one jury is an 11 to one jury. In other words, that's a deliberating jury. Typically 11 to one doesn't hold. Usually the jury then the one will cave in. But if you had someone who actually had legitimate doubts about the case, you don't have a right to take them off the jury. But I think what I'm trying to get at is trying to get to the bottom of what this one juror was saying is incredibly difficult. And he did it. He tried it through individual questioning of the jury. Then he tried to sort of hammer home his instructions again and he got no further information. There are surely cases in which jurors have been removed mid trial, not happen very often. Sometimes a juror overhears a racist statement. Sometimes you have a juror who is really intransigent and not getting along with the others. But he didn't have any more information

7:17than one juror refuses to listen to the law. And that wasn't enough. Judges, we've got just about a minute left. And I'm hoping you can help us understand just how limited a judge is and what your options are at that point. When you want to know more about what's going on here, it seems like there could be a serious problem. But if you do too much, you can tamper with a jury deliberation. What are you thinking in that moment? Well, the general rule is you do it as little as possible to interfere with a sitting jury and a deliberating jury. And when you go over what he did, none of what he did shook out anything further than the statement that the person was not following the law. I mean, I'm not sure that there was more that he could have done under the circumstances. We're going to find out now no question about it from the jurors. Again, there are ways in which a judge can intervene. But he had to have a threshold enough information to intervene. And the question was whether this was going to be enough. From all you could see from following this case, do you think he made the right decision? Took the right path here? I think he did. I think he did.

8:22In watching the case, I certainly thought that she was going to be acquitted based on the evidence that had come in. But I sympathized with the judge at this moment that he did what he could. Former Judge Nancy Gertner, now at Harvard Law School, thank you so much for your time. You're very welcome.