Judge Refuses to Remove Juror as Lindsay Clancy Jury Remains Divided

DUXBURY, Mass. — The jury in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial began its seventh day of deliberations Friday with the panel apparently divided over whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Before jurors returned to the courtroom, Judge William Sullivan addressed a note sent by the jury foreperson Thursday afternoon. The note suggested that one juror remained unconvinced by the defense’s case and was not applying reasonable doubt to the evidence. The message appeared to point to an 11-1 split among the jurors.

Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, asked the judge to remove the juror, arguing that the juror was refusing to follow the law and was preventing the jury from reaching a decision.

Sullivan rejected the request.

“The note indicates that the juror has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it,” Sullivan said. “That note does not indicate that the juror refuses to follow the law.”

Reddington then asked Sullivan to give the jury a stronger reminder about the meaning of reasonable doubt.

“What do you want me to do?” the judge responded. “Get a brass band?”

The exchange came as the jury continued weighing one of the most closely watched criminal cases in Massachusetts.

Clancy is charged with first-degree murder in the deaths of her three children. Jurors are also considering possible convictions for second-degree murder and manslaughter.

Clancy has pleaded not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. Her defense says she was experiencing severe postpartum psychosis and had also been overmedicated when she killed her children.

The children — 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan — were strangled with exercise bands inside the family’s Duxbury home in January 2023.

After the killings, Clancy cut her wrists and jumped from a second-story window in what prosecutors and investigators described as an apparent suicide attempt.

During closing arguments, Reddington argued that Clancy had repeatedly sought medical help for postpartum mental health problems but was failed by the medical system. He told jurors that her condition had deteriorated to the point where she could no longer understand or control what she was doing.

Prosecutors offered a very different explanation.

Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague argued that Clancy was depressed and suicidal but was not experiencing psychosis when she killed her children. She said the children had been a reason for Clancy to stay alive — a “protective factor” — and argued that Clancy deliberately removed that factor.

“Those kids were her protective factor,” Sprague told jurors. “Those kids were keeping her from ending her misery. So she had to remove the protective factor.”

The jury’s latest note has raised the possibility of a difficult and prolonged deliberation. But Sullivan’s decision means the jurors will remain together and continue considering the evidence.

For now, the central question remains whether prosecutors have proved that Clancy was legally responsible for the deaths — or whether her mental state prevented her from understanding or controlling her actions at the time.