PLYMOUTH, Mass. — Lindsay Clancy’s trial judge declared a mistrial Friday after an emergency defence appeal was denied. Judge William Sullivan ended the trial after jurors on Friday sent a note for a third time saying they couldn’t unanimously decide whether to hold her criminally responsible for killing her three young children in 2023. Deliberations took a dramatic turn Thursday when the foreperson told the judge that a lone holdout was refusing to follow the court’s instructions about reasonable doubt. Clancy’s defence has argued that the judge’s refusal to remove the juror undermines the trial. Clancy, a 36-year-old former labour and delivery nurse, doesn’t deny strangling her children in the basement of their home. Defence attorney Kevin Reddington blamed postpartum psychosis. Jennifer Sprague said Clancy knew what she was doing. Postpartum psychosis is estimated to afflict one to two women per 1,000 after delivery. Experts at the Cleveland Clinic describe it as a mental health emergency affecting someone’s sense of reality. Though most people with postpartum psychosis don’t harm their children, mothers with severe cases may try to do so. Here’s the latest: Plymouth resident expresses disappointment over mistrial Rhonda Gonsalves, who has come to court three times but not Friday and dressed in white for the Clancy children, said it wasn’t the verdict she was hoping for. “I don’t think today was justice for the children at all because we are going to have to do this all over again,” she said by phone. “At the end of the day, I do think she deserves to be behind bars or a mental institution for the rest of her life for what she did to her children.” Maternal mental health advocate calls killing of Clancy children ‘a preventable tragedy’ Jessie Colbert is the co-ordinator of the Massachusetts Mind the Gap Coalition, an advocacy group working on state legislation that would reform how maternal mental health conditions are treated in the criminal justice system. “The shame, stigma, confusion, and lack of any real system of care around Perinatal Mood and Anxiety Disorders (PMADs) is an ongoing crisis much wider than this trial,” Colbert said. “Better solutions are needed in both the health care and criminal legal systems, and even more so for vulnerable communities.” Judge orders the names of jurors impounded Sullivan said the case has garnered significant and divisive attention in Massachusetts and beyond. The order expires in 14 days unless otherwise directed by the court, and it does not preclude jurors from coming forward and identifying themselves. Ex-husband’s civil lawyer says the prospect of another criminal trial is painful David Meier, who is representing Clancy’s former husband Patrick Clancy in his civil lawsuit over her mental health treatment, released this statement: “Patrick Clancy is grateful to the Court and to the jurors for their hard work, their commitment, and their perseverance. The loss of Patrick’s children is something from which he will never recover and from which there will never be closure. The prospect of reliving this tragedy through another trial is extraordinarily painful -- for Patrick, for his family, and for all us.” In separate lawsuits, Lindsay and Patrick Clancy allege that various providers failed her, and should have recognized she was a risk to herself and the children. The providers, at least those who had responded by the time the criminal trial began, deny the allegations and dispute that she clearly told them she intended to harm the kids. Clancy supporter feels the mistrial is unfair to her — and to women in general “I don’t think she deserves to have to go through this all over again. I think this should have been resolved,” Marta Quijano said outside the courthouse. She said she’s been following the case since the beginning and has attended the trial. “It’s very unfair. I feel as women we are treated very unfairly. We get dismissed, things are minimized. Even what’s happened today,” she said, referring to the juror who was singled out in a note from the foreperson. “I think one person failed her.” Clancy’s family made no comments Clancy’s parents and her sister were escorted by state police out the back of the courthouse. They said nothing to reporters. Clancy remains charged with murder and will continue to be held at a psychiatric hospital until her criminal case is resolved. Lawyer says Clancy knows her kids were victims During remarks to reporters, Reddington spoke affectionately about Clancy, saying “she’s like a daughter to me.” “My heart breaks. She deserved an acquittal,” he said. At another point, a reporter noted that Cruz said the focus should remain on the children. “My client is well aware of the fact that her three kids, who she loved dearly, are the victims in this case,” Reddington said. Reddington said his ‘heart breaks’ for Clancy “She deserved an acquittal,” he lawyer said. And despite some sharp exchanges in court, Reddington said he deeply respects the judge. He referred to Sullivan as “Sully” when he talked to reporters. “He’s a great guy. He was a wonderful defense lawyer before he became a judge. Everybody loves him, he’s a fair guy,” Reddington said. Defence attorney has strong words for juror Outside the courthouse, Reddington blasted the juror whom he believes stood in the others’ way of an acquittal. “They know they were robbed by one man, for whatever his agenda was, who stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurors that were so attentive, so beautiful, so wonderful,” he said. “You could see how defeated they were sitting there. I got a funny feeling they would have gone on for another week if they had to. So I hope that guy can sleep well at night.” Prosecutor praises his trial team Cruz praised trial prosecutors Shanan Buckingham and Jennifer Sprague, “both mothers themselves.” “They went home to their families after each long day in court. They embraced the most difficult trial assigned to them with utmost professionalism,” he said. Trump weighs in on Clancy mistrial, calls killing of children ‘horrible tragedy’ The U.S. president said he followed television news coverage of the Lindsay Clancy trial in Plymouth, Massachusetts. “It’s a terrible situation. Look, she did a horrible, horrible thing,” Trump said. “Can’t be worse. But you’ll find out what the price to pay is. There’ll be a price — a mental institution or jail or something.” Prosecutor says he won’t be swayed by public opinion about a second trial “I have never been swayed to act a certain way or make certain decisions based upon public sentiment,” he said. Prosecutor says this case isn’t about the medical care of women “This was and has always been about getting justice for those three little babies. We’re here at this courthouse today because those children are not. ... Children were murdered, and it’s our job to seek justice,” District Attorney Timothy Cruz said. “This case is not about the healthcare system, or about how women are treated in it,” or the diagnosis of different medical conditions, he said. “Those are all important issues. They stir emotion. Sometimes they stir anger. “I understand that postpartum depression has impacted the lives of countless women and families, and I sympathize with their struggles. The investigation in these heinous killings, however, did not establish that they were caused by such depression,” Cruz said. Emotions run high as crowd shouts at prosecutor ‘You only cared when the kids were dead, why didn’t you care about the mother?’ someone yelled. Someone else yelled “God bless those children” as the press conference wrapped up. Prosecutors have gathered outside court to comment on mistrial “I understand that this has been an emotional trial for everyone,” Plymouth District Attorney Timothy Cruz said. “This case was about Lindsay Clancy and what she did ... the cruel and calculated killing of three innocents.” “This was and has always been about getting justice for those beautiful babies,” Cruz said. “Children were murdered and it’s our job to seek justice.” Cruz said there would not be an immediate decision about a second trial. Clancy lawyer will get a chance to ask for acquittal Shira Diner, a lecturer at Boston University law school and former public defender, told The Associated Press however that “it seems very unlikely that this judge would agree to overrule what the jury decided, which was nothing, and enter his own opinion.” What happens next? After the jury was dismissed, the judge and lawyers discussed their next steps The judge set a hearing for Sept. 29 at which Reddington likely will ask Sullivan to declare Clancy not guilty, a rare step but one that is allowed under state law. The hearing could also reveal details about a possible second trial. No one shows emotion after a grueling experience Neither the jury or Clancy nor her family show any emotion as the judge announces the mistrial. JUST IN: Mistrial is formally declared in the Lindsay Clancy trial after a last-minute appeal by her lawyer is denied Clancy’s defence lost its emergency appeal. Her lawyer isn’t giving up Judge Sullivan called court back into session and confirmed that the emergency defence appeal was denied. The judge said he would declare a mistrial as planned, but Reddington continued to object, saying federal law protecting criminal defendants was being violated. He again again requested a jury inquiry. And again, the judge denied it, declaring a mistrial and calling jurors into the courtroom. He then thanked the jurors for their service and dismissed them. JUST IN: Massachusetts court clears the way for judge to declare a mistrial in Lindsay Clancy case after a last-minute appeal Appeal cited constitutional rights The appeal petition said removing the juror “is particularly important because the juror’s reasoning reflects a bias against those who suffer from debilitating mental illness, a protected category under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and Article 114 of the Massachusetts.” Massachusetts justice has heard arguments from both sides A member of Massachusetts’ highest court has quickly heard arguments in a last-ditch effort by Clancy’s lawyers to stop a judge from declaring a mistrial. The defence team wants the court to order the trial judge to further question a juror about applying the law and following instructions during deliberations in the high-profile trial. Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt heard arguments over video conference and then said, “I need to make a decision.” She said she’s taking the appeal “under advisement,” and offered no timeline for her decision. Defence attorneys suggest juror may be biased against mentally ill people Defence attorneys wrote the top court in Massachusetts in their emergency request for relief that the reasoning of one of the jurors “reflects a bias against those who suffer from debilitating mental illness.” The defence brief says the high court has held that just one juror who is not impartial violates a defendant’s right to have an impartial jury. It says the trial court judge “need not simply accept the juror’s professions of fidelity and impartiality,” but rather can determine whether the juror is credible in light of the other jurors’ statements. “The judge appears to be abdicating the responsibility” to weigh the evidence of juror malfeasance, the defence argues. “This is not abuse of discretion; it is failure to exercise discretion at all.” Here’s what the defence’s written appeal brief asks for The defence appeal asks the top court in Massachusetts to require the trial judge to do two things: “(1) to inquire into the ability of the identified juror to apply the lawor(2) prohibit the further deliberations of a juror identified by the jury foreperson as biased and refusing to follow the court’s instructions on reasonable doubt unless and until the court determines by individual voir dire that the juror is willing and able to follow the court’s instructions.” “The judge appears to be abdicating the responsibility to weight the evidence of juror malfeasance. In other words, this is not abuse of discretion; it is failure to exercise discretion at all,” the brief says. “A mistrial at this point is entirely avoidable, but only if the court does its job.” The court is now in recess Participants were told the lunch break would be from 1 p.m.-2 p.m. The defence appeal has been filed Attorney Dana Goldblatt said she filed the emergency appeal on behalf of Lindsay Clancy’s defence attorney Kevin Reddington at 12:29 p.m. on Friday. Legal expert says it’s highly unlikely the defence appeal will be granted Trial judges don’t often allow a defence attorney to file such emergency petitions, said Joseph Perullo, a criminal defence attorney in Massachusetts. The petition will be considered by a single justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court who will look at whether the trial judge abused his discretion, committed a reversible error of law or did something that is “egregious and should be corrected prior to a mistrial being announced.” The justice could initially grant a stay pausing the trial court proceedings and then consider the merits of the defence attorney’s petition in a process that would give the prosecutors a chance to present their arguments. But “that is a high bar,” Perullo said. He doubts the justice will pause the trial proceedings to consider the merits. The judge’s clock is ticking on the defence appeal More than an hour has passed since the judge gave the defence one hour to file an emergency appeal of his pending mistrial declaration. Reached for comment, the clerk’s office for the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts told The Associated Press that it is in the process of receiving all the documents related to the emergency appeal. What happens if the judge declares a mistrial? If a mistrial were declared, the case would essentially go back to the same status as before the trial — Clancy could be charged with murder and held at a psychiatric hospital awaiting a resolution of the criminal case. Prosecutors would have to decide whether to try again with a new jury. If they do, the jury selection process would begin again and a new trial would 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,” Bailey said. Here’s how the mistrial discussion played out in court Prosecutor Jennifer Prague told the judge a mistrial was required because he had already read to the jury the legal instruction sometimes known as a “dynamite charge.” Reddington argued the judge still had discretion: “The court has the ability to send the jury back,” he said. Sounding exasperated, the judge said “I don’t feel I have any choice but to declare a mistrial at this time.” Reddington then requested that the jurors be polled “as to whether or not there has been a decision reached on murder one, murder two, manslaughter or anything like that.” If they did reach such a decision, prosecuting her again on those charges would be double jeopardy, he said. Sprague objected, saying the court can’t delve into jury deliberations. “I don’t think anything else is required at this point other than a declaration of mistrial unfortunately.” Sullivan then said, “Over the defendant’s objection, I am going to declare a mistrial at this point.” Then Reddington pushed back, and the judge gave him one hour to appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Legal expert sees ‘structural defect’ in the trial Criminal defence attorney Joseph Krowski, speaking outside the court in Plymouth, Massachusetts, said Reddington wants a judge on the state’s highest court to consider an emergency stay because he believes there “is a structural defect to this trial by the failure to remove the juror or do an inquiry.” Here’s what the foreperson’s note read Judge Sullivan read the jury foreperson’s note aloud in open court: “It is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to.” Court is once again in recess, mistrial pending, as the defence appeals Sullivan and Reddington went back and forth after the judge signaled that he would declare a mistrial and summon the jury to break the news. Then the judge suddenly gave Clancy’s lawyer time to seek an appeal to stop his mistrial order. “What I’m asking for is time to file a single-justice appeal for this travesty,” said Reddington, who was upset over Sullivan’s refusal to remove a juror. “I’ll hold off for an hour,” the judge said. The clock began around 11:30 a.m. There was an audible gasp when the judge said he would declare a mistrial Clancy’s parents, Paula and Mike Musgrove, and her sister, Allison Ozga, showed no reaction but stared straight ahead. Clancy’s expression wasn’t visible to the gallery. The defence then raised objections and the jury was not brought in. Judge says he is going to declare a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case, then gives defence 1 hour to appeal (Corrects mistrial not formally declared) Correction: A mistrial was not formally declared. The court clerk had something to show the lawyers Prosecutors and Reddington are being brought up to a podium and the court clerk showed them something. It is unclear what it was. Now they’ve returned to their tables. There’s no more room With about 100 people packed inside, a court officer told the public outside “there is no more room” and the courtroom doors were closed. People are being called back into court First the media and now members of the public are re-entering the courtroom. The prosecutors are at their table. Reddington is sitting next to Clancy. Clancy’s parents and her sister are two rows back. With the court in recess as the jury deliberates, the scene outside is calm There’s a line for media seats that’s 15 people deep, with journalists either standing or sitting on the floor behind an orange cone after court security moved them back from the door. The benches outside the courtroom are filled with about 20 members of the public, some dressed in pink to show their support for Clancy. Many are waiting to get a seat in the courtroom, which has been filled to capacity. Here’s what the judge told jurors about reasonable doubt Sullivan told jurors on Thursday that “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is a term that’s “probably pretty well understood though it’s not easily defined.” “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt,” Sullivan said. He also reminded jurors that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. “If you evaluate all the evidence and you still have a reasonable doubt remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be acquitted,” he said. “The evidence must convince you of the defendant’s guilt to a reasonable and moral certainty,” he also said. Judge, defence lawyer clash over his delivery Reddington urged Sullivan to “forcefully” explain the jury instruction about how to apply reasonable doubt to deliberations, and not use a “soft” approach. “What do you want me to do? Get a brass band?” the judge responded. “The fact that I perhaps didn’t give it my full inflection — I’m sorry about that but I’m not an actor. I’m just giving the instruction.” Sullivan then promised to give the instruction again “with more pizzazz,” a remark that caused laughter in the courtroom. The judge ultimately gave the jurors one more reminder about following his instructions before sending them back to the jury room. Judge said he’s constrained by statute dealing with juror removal “That juror told you that he would be able to apply the law to the fact as you asked him. Based on this note from this juror it clearly and unequivocally indicates they are 11-1 and this person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not guilty verdict.” Sullivan disagreed, saying the law only allows a juror to be discharged for personal reasons having nothing to do with the case or their relationship with the other jurors. Defence lawyer told judge the juror was lying to him Before the jury was brought into the courtroom Friday, Reddington beseeched the judge to deal with the juror referenced in the foreperson’s note on Thursday. “I have never seen a situation like this where a foreperson on the jury is so courageous as to speak on behalf of 11 jurors and indicate that a juror, number which I will not mention, and I quote, ‘has made statements acknowledging doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict,’” Reddington said. Reddington said the juror “looked you in the eye and lied” when the judge questioned him after receiving the note. Expert says the judge has to be very careful Criminal defence attorney Joseph Krowski Jr. has been following the trial and commented outside court about the judge’s challenge at this point in the deliberations. “The jurors aren’t saying that there’s just a factual disagreement with the holdout — they’re saying that that juror is refusing to follow the law,” Krowski said Thursday evening. “Now, I don’t want to speculate. I’m not in there, and I don’t know what the disagreement is, and how do we know that that juror’s even right or wrong on the law, but you could see the visceral reaction from attorney Reddington, and it looked like to me that he’s frustrated.” “Judges have to be careful into inquiring into what’s being discussed during deliberation. So if he gets another communication, then I’m sure he would have a very, very confined, carefully constrained voir dire,” Krowski said. “One more communication that they’re at an impasse would mandate a hung jury, mistrial.” Judge sends jury back into deliberations room, with one more reminder “I wanted to remind you, as I instructed you earlier, it is your duty as jurors to accept the law as I gave it to you,” he told them. “You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree with it or not.” “With that, you may now resume your deliberations.” As for any notes from the jury room ... Sullivan acknowledged to the jury that he got a note from the jury on Thursday. “If there are any notes in the future ... make sure we don’t put down where everybody is numerically,” Sullivan told them. Jury is seated once again Despite a request from Reddington, Sullivan has ruled that he will not do a further inquiry of the juror. We are in court. 7th day of deliberations Court has reopened and reporters and the public have filed in. There is not an empty seat. The judge is now here and lawyers are discussing further instructions to the jury. Clancy defence motion seeks all further courtroom debate to be out in the open Reddington filed a motion Friday requesting a standing order so there will “be no further sidebars” and that “all related proceedings will be handled in open court.” Sullivan has often used sidebars to discuss legal issues with the defence and prosecution, especially during jury deliberations. During those sessions, no one in court can hear what is being discussed. Clancy’s lawyer hopes to debate in open court how the judge will question the juror Defence attorney Kevin Reddington told reporters after leaving court Thursday that the foreperson’s note identified the holdout juror to the judge. He said he’s hoping that before the judge questions that juror on Friday, attorneys on both sides will get to argue over the specifics of that inquiry. Reddington wants that debate out in the open, not in a private sidebar conversation. A single juror may be preventing a verdict. The judge had them sleep on it A deadlocked jury returns Friday for the seventh day of deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy trial, a day after the jury’s foreperson informed the judge that a single juror wasn’t following the court’s instructions about reasonable doubt. The extraordinary disclosure made Thursday in the form of a note delivered to the judge offered the clearest glimpse yet of what may be keeping jurors from reaching a verdict on whether the Massachusetts mother is criminally responsible for killing her three children. The jury has twice told Judge William Sullivan that it is unable to agree on a verdict. On Thursday, Sullivan brought in each juror individually and questioned them in private. The judge then reread his instructions on reasonable doubt before sending them back to continue deliberating. Soon thereafter, he sent them home. The Associated Press If you or someone you know is in crisis or struggling with mental illness, here are some resources that are available. Canada Suicide Crisis Helpline (Call or text 988 or visit 988.ca) Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (1-800-463-2338) Kids Help Phone (1-800-668-6868) If you need immediate assistance call 911 or go to the nearest hospital.
