The jury weighing the fate of Lindsay Clancy told a Plymouth Superior Court judge Wednesday that they remain deadlocked after more than 27 hours of deliberations, prompting the judge to issue a final, high-pressure instruction urging them to reach a unanimous verdict.
It is the second time in two days that the nine women and three men have told Judge William Sullivan they are unable to agree.
The jury began deliberating last Thursday after receiving the case in Plymouth Superior Court. On Tuesday morning, jurors sent Sullivan a note saying they were “unable to come to a unanimous decision.” Rather than declare a mistrial, the judge instructed them to return to their deliberations.
Then, at about 2:15 p.m. Wednesday, jurors sent another note indicating they still could not reach a verdict.
Sullivan responded by reading the jury what is known as the “Tuey-Rodriguez” instruction, sometimes referred to as a “dynamite charge.” The Massachusetts instruction is used as a last resort when jurors appear unable to reach a unanimous decision and encourages them to continue deliberating and carefully reconsider their positions.
The same type of instruction was given during Karen Read’s first trial in 2024, which ultimately ended with a hung jury and a mistrial.
After delivering the instruction Wednesday, Sullivan sent the jurors back to the deliberation room to continue working toward a verdict.
Five Possible Verdicts
Clancy is charged with the first-degree murders of her three children — 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan — who were killed at the family’s Duxbury home on Jan. 24, 2023.
Jurors have five possible outcomes to consider:
- Not guilty by reason of insanity
- Not guilty
- First-degree murder
- Second-degree murder
- Manslaughter
If the jury cannot reach a unanimous decision, the case could eventually end in a mistrial.
Hung juries have resulted in mistrials in two high-profile Massachusetts cases in recent years: the 2023 case against Emanuel Lopes, who was charged in the killing of Weymouth Police Sgt. Michael Chesna and an innocent bystander, and Karen Read’s first murder trial in 2024.
Clashing Arguments Over Clancy’s Mental State
At the center of Clancy’s defense is the argument that she was not criminally responsible for the deaths because she was overmedicated and suffering from postpartum psychosis.
Her attorney, Kevin Reddington, has argued that Clancy’s mental state prevented her from understanding the wrongfulness of her actions.
Prosecutors have presented a starkly different account, arguing that Clancy planned the killings and understood right from wrong when she strangled her children.
Reddington has also criticized Plymouth District Attorney Tim Cruz’s decision to charge Clancy with first-degree murder, a charge that requires the case to be decided by a jury.
Had Clancy instead faced second-degree murder charges, a plea agreement could potentially have been negotiated, and there would have been an option for a judge to decide the case rather than requiring a jury trial.
For now, however, the 12 jurors remain tasked with answering one of the most consequential questions in the case: Can they reach a unanimous verdict?
