The judge presiding over the trial of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother who admitted to killing her three young children, declared a mistrial after the state Supreme Court rejected a last-minute bid from Clancy’s lawyer to remove a juror who had been the subject of courtroom debate.

Judge William Sullivan issued his ruling on Friday afternoon, after Clancy’s legal team filed an emergency stay with the state Supreme Court requesting that Sullivan inquire about whether one particular juror could properly apply the law and, if not, prevent that juror from engaging in further deliberations. The court ultimately denied the request.

Sullivan set the next court date for Sept. 29, and said he would like to re-try the case later this fall. Clancy will remain held at Tewksbury Hospital, a state-run psychiatric facility where she has been for the past few years, until then. The judge thanked the jurors for their service and complimented the attorneys for their work on the case.

The mistrial marks the end — for now — of an emotional case that has dominated national headlines and sparked debates about culpability and maternal mental health.

It will be up to Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz on whether to bring the case again and under which charges. Clancy’s lawyer Kevin Reddington recently told reporters he would “absolutely” represent Clancy again in the event of a mistrial and predicted that Cruz would seek to bring the case again under the same charges.

Outside the courthouse on Friday, Cruz said he would not offer an immediate decision on a retrial, and he thanked the jurors for their work in the case. He paid tribute to Clancy’s three children — 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan — adding, “This was and has always been about getting justice for those three little babies.”

Reddington told reporters that Clancy and her family were not doing well, saying they feel “robbed” by the one juror in question. “Her life is a tragedy and she was robbed by this man,” Reddington said, referring to the juror.

He said Clancy “will be ready” if the case is retried in the fall.

Sullivan said earlier that he felt he had no choice but to declare a mistrial after the jury delivered a note to the court Friday morning that said that “with a heavy heart” they could not reach a unanimous verdict in the emotional case. That marked the third time this week that the jury told the judge they could not reach a unanimous verdict. Each time, Sullivan ordered them to continue deliberating.

On Wednesday, the judge read the jurors what is known as a Tuey-Rodriguez instruction, which instructs them to make their best efforts to reach a unanimous verdict in the case. On Thursday, he re-instructed them on the concept of “reasonable doubt” — the burden of proof prosecutors must meet to prove their case — after the jury foreperson sent a note saying that there was one juror “who refuses to listen to the law that [the judge] has given him or her on reasonable doubt,” Reddington said. The judge rejected Reddington’s requests to have that juror removed, and to question the juror directly, leading to a heated courtroom clash Friday morning.

After Reddington objected to Sullivan’s intent to declare a mistrial on Friday morning, the judge gave Clancy’s team an hour to file their emergency stay. Clancy’s legal team filed the seven-page document just before that one-hour mark expired, and argued its motion on a Zoom call with a justice of the state Supreme Court and Jennifer Sprague, the assistant district attorney.

In the document, obtained by MS NOW, the defense requested that the state Supreme Court order Sullivan to inquire about whether the juror in question could properly apply the law, and, if not, to prevent that juror from engaging in any further deliberations. Sprague argued that Sullivan’s decision not to further question that juror should be respected, and that the judge had the authority to declare a mistrial.

The jury began deliberations on Aug. 27. Nine women and three men served on the jury, according to reporters in the courtroom. Reddington referred to the juror who was apparently not following the law as “he.”

Since the trial began in Plymouth Superior Court in late July, prosecutors argued that Clancy, 36, intentionally strangled her three young children in the basement of her Duxbury, Massachusetts, home on Jan. 24, 2023, after sending her then-husband, Patrick, out for errands. Clancy subsequently attempted suicide and is now paralyzed from the waist down.

The prosecutors argued that the mother’s claims of auditory hallucinations at the time of the killings were inconsistent and that she killed her children before attempting suicide because of her continued mental health struggles and because she did not want her kids to live without her. The prosecution sought a triple first-degree murder conviction, which would send Clancy to prison for life without the possibility of parole. The judge also allowed the jury to consider charges of second-degree murder, which would send Clancy to prison for life with the possibility of parole, and manslaughter, which would carry a 20-year sentence per count.

Clancy does not dispute killing her children and has given detailed accounts of the killings to expert witnesses who testified at the trial and in a civil lawsuit she filed against some of her medical providers. The defense has argued that Clancy was in the throes of postpartum psychosis, a rare psychiatric emergency that can affect women after childbirth, at the time of the killings.

Throughout the trial, Reddington emphasized Clancy’s efforts to get treatment for postpartum depression in the months before the killings and pointed to the more than dozen medications, including antidepressants and antipsychotics, that she was prescribed. He insisted she was a loving mother who killed her children only after experiencing medication-induced psychosis.

Reddington argued that Clancy should be found not guilty by reason of insanity, which would have her committed to a state-run psychiatric institution, where she could be periodically reviewed for release.

The trial featured dozens of witnesses, including five of the medical professionals who treated Clancy’s mental health struggles, whom she is suing in the civil lawsuit. (The physicians have denied allegations of wrongdoing or negligence.) Patrick Clancy, both of his parents and Lindsay’s mother and sister also took the stand, testifying that she was a loving, dedicated mother before the killings. A former babysitter, a former colleague and a longtime friend of Clancy’s did, as well.

First responders testified to the chaotic scene at the family’s home on the night of the killings, and medical examiners described the children’s injuries as jurors viewed their autopsy photos. Those in the courtroom, including Clancy’s parents and some members of the public, heard the anguished 911 call Patrick Clancy made upon returning home and discovering his then-wife on the ground outside, and then his children’s bodies in the basement.

The judge impounded the 911 call and the children’s autopsy photos to prevent their public release.

Lindsay Clancy sobbed audibly in court when medical examiners discussed the children’s injuries and autopsies. At one point, she cried out, “I can’t do it!” prompting Sullivan to call for a recess.

The last days in court before the jury began their deliberations were particularly contentious. At one point, Reddington moved for a mistrial, citing that both a lawyer for the prosecution and one of its witnesses invoked the Clancy family’s Catholic faith and characterized the killings as a “mortal sin.” Sullivan denied the mistrial motion but strongly rebuked the prosecution’s repeated invocation of religion, which is not supposed to factor into a witness’ credibility under the state’s evidence law.

News of the trial dominated national headlines in recent weeks, as commentators debated Clancy’s culpability. Some spread conspiracy theories about the case on social media, baselessly alleging Clancy was not the killer despite her repeated admissions, and her supporters rallied outside the courthouse wearing pink T-shirts on several days.

Advocates for postpartum mental health argued the trial represented a woman failed by the medical system, while adherents of the so-called Make America Healthy Again movement used the case to argue in favor of the federal government’s attempted crackdown on antidepressants — arguments that psychiatrists and experts in perinatal mood disorders told MS NOW they disagree with.

Lisa Rubin contributed reporting.

If you or someone you know is in crisis, call or text 988 to reach the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline or chat live at 988lifeline.org. You can also visit SpeakingOfSuicide.com/resources for additional support.

The post Judge declares mistrial in Lindsay Clancy case after defense loses bid for delay appeared first on MS NOW.

From MS Now.