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 has been the subject of courtroom debate.

Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial in the emotional case after Clancy’s legal team filed an emergency stay with the state Supreme Court requesting that Sullivan inquire about whether one particular juror can properly apply the law and, if not, to prevent that juror from engaging in further deliberations. The state Supreme Court denied the request.

It will now 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.

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. After Reddington objected to Sullivan’s intent to declare a mistrial, 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. The appeal argued that “intervention is necessary in this case to avoid an avoidable mistrial of a case that is so time and labor intensive and that has captured so much public attention.”

“A mistrial at this point is entirely avoidable, but only if the court does its job,” the filing concludes.

Reddington and Jennifer Sprague, the assistant district attorney, argued their motions in a video conference with a justice of the state Supreme Court on Friday afternoon. Sprague argued that Sullivan’s decision not to further question that juror should be respected, and that he has the authority to declare a mistrial.

The meeting ended without a decision from the justice.

The latest development came after the jury told Sullivan three times this week that they could not reach a unanimous verdict. Each time, Sullivan ordered them to continue deliberating. On Wednesday, he 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. Reddington said the jury foreperson had 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.” The judge also rejected Reddington’s requests to have that juror removed, and to question the juror directly, leading to a heated courtroom clash Friday morning.

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 have argued that Clancy, 36, intentionally strangled her three young children — 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan — 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. She has been held at one such facility, Tewksbury Hospital, for the past few years.

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.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

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 appeal appeared first on MS NOW.

From MS Now.