A Massachusetts judge has declared a mistrial in the high-profile murder case against former nurse Lindsay Clancy after a 12-member jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict.
Judge William Sullivan declared the mistrial on Friday after the jury remained deadlocked following seven days of deliberations.
Clancy, 36, faces charges over the deaths of her three young children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months — whom she acknowledged strangling in their Massachusetts home.
The jury deliberated for about 38 hours before informing the court that it could not reach a unanimous decision.
“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 jury said in a note read in court by Sullivan.
Jury split 11-1
The jury reportedly remained divided 11-1, with one juror opposing the majority position.
Clancy’s defence lawyer, Kevin Reddington, had asked the judge to question the juror further, arguing that the holdout was biased and had failed to follow the court’s instructions on reasonable doubt.
Sullivan rejected the request, saying there was no evidence that the juror had refused to deliberate.
The judge instead instructed the jury to continue deliberating. The panel later returned with another note confirming that it remained deadlocked.
Before declaring the mistrial, Sullivan allowed the defence one hour to seek emergency intervention from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
The defence asked the state’s highest court to order the trial judge to question the holdout juror further or remove the juror from the panel.
The Supreme Judicial Court denied the request, after which Sullivan formally declared the mistrial.
Defence claims victory
Following the ruling, Reddington described the outcome as a victory for Clancy and strongly criticised the prosecution.
“I won the case,” he said, adding that the prosecution “was crushed.”
He also accused the lone holdout of depriving the other jurors of their preferred outcome.
Reddington said the juror had “robbed” the other members of the panel and praised his client as a “fantastic, wonderful individual.”
Prosecution considers retrial
Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said prosecutors would decide whether to seek a new trial.
Cruz said the prosecution had always focused on seeking justice for Clancy’s three children.
“Our case has always been about getting justice for those three little babies,” Cruz said, adding that it was “not about a healthcare system.”
A retrial could present challenges because of the intense publicity surrounding the case and the difficulty of finding jurors who have not already formed opinions about Clancy.
Legal experts, however, say potential jurors do not necessarily have to be unfamiliar with the case. The key question would be whether they could set aside what they have previously heard and decide the case based solely on evidence presented in court.
Postpartum psychosis at centre of defence
The trial centred heavily on Clancy’s mental state at the time of the killings.
Prosecutors argued that she acted “intentionally, rationally, and swiftly” when she killed her children.
The defence maintained that Clancy should not be held criminally responsible because she was experiencing postpartum psychosis, a rare condition that can cause severe psychiatric symptoms after childbirth.
Her medical providers testified that she had received mental health treatment and taken several medications following the birth of her youngest child.
The case has also renewed debate in the United States about maternal mental health and the treatment available to women after childbirth.
Clancy to remain in hospital
Clancy is expected to return to Tewksbury Hospital, where she has been held since 2023, while the case continues.
She remains under psychiatric care and constant one-to-one supervision, according to testimony presented during the trial.
A status hearing has been scheduled for September 29, when the court could consider the next steps in the case.
Those steps could include a decision by prosecutors to pursue a retrial, a possible plea agreement or other legal proceedings.
Clancy’s former husband, Patrick Clancy, has said the prospect of another trial would be extremely painful for him and his family.
“The loss of Patrick’s children is something from which he will never recover and from which there will never be closure,” his lawyer, David Meier, said in a statement.
He added that reliving the events through another trial would be “extraordinarily painful” for Patrick, his family and others involved in the case.
