When there was no quick return on the verdict in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy, it was a signal that the jury was going to be deliberating for a while.

As each day dragged on, it appeared that a mistrial was getting closer and closer. Yesterday, the defense attempted to get one juror tossed. Judge William Sullivan tried to get the jury to move with additional interviews and additional instructions, but the defense lawyer, Kevin Reddington, wanted the holdout juror removed.

Sullivan then brought the jurors into the courtroom one by one and asked whether they could follow his instructions. Moments later, he brought the entire jury back into the courtroom and explained the meaning of reasonable doubt before ordering them to return to deliberations.

“I want to remind you that you are required to follow my instructions on the law as I gave them to you,” Sullivan told the jury. “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt.”

Reddington asked Sullivan to remove the juror accused of disregarding the instructions and replace that juror with an alternate. Sullivan denied the request, saying he could not determine which side of the jury room dispute was correct.

“I don’t feel that it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations,” Sullivan said, according to CBS Boston. “I don’t feel it’s appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or the 11.”

Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague also opposed removing the juror, arguing that Sullivan had responded appropriately by questioning each member of the panel.

“I think what Your Honor has done by asking each juror if they’re able to follow the law and then giving a general instruction on reasonable doubt is appropriate,” she said.

That dispute is particularly consequential because Massachusetts places an unusual burden on the prosecution when a defendant raises an insanity defense. Under Massachusetts law, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane and criminally responsible at the time of the crime.

It was assumed that because the defense was asking for a single juror to be removed, that juror was voting against the defense and to convict Lindsay Clancy. The judge tried again to get some kind of unanimous agreement, but it didn’t work. He was ready to declare a mistrial – but the defense begged for another hour to see if the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court would boot the juror. The attempt didn’t work.

The nine-woman, three-man jury told Sullivan for the third time that they were deadlocked and unable to reach a unanimous decision after around 38 hours of deliberations.

“With a heavy heart we report we cannot come to a unanimous decision,” the jurors wrote in a note.

Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington then made a last-ditch effort before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court after the judge prepared to declare a mistrial. Sullivan gave Reddington one hour to file an emergency stay before bringing the jury back into the courtroom to officially declare a mistrial.

In his appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Reddington pushed for the removal of a lone holdout juror, arguing that the juror is “biased” against those with “debilitating mental illness.”

The high court rejected Reddington’s emergency appeal.

There is simply no way that any judge is going to remove a juror without sufficient cause from a deliberating jury, and believing that the defendant is guilty is certainly not it.

The juror is impermissibly biased against my client, and we know that because the juror did not vote to acquit my client. https://t.co/tWDe6alWNH

— Sunny (@sunnyright) September 4, 2026

With the vote deadlocked, Judge Sullivan declared a mistrial.

The mistrial doesn’t mean Clancy gets to go free — she will instead remain at Tewksbury Hospital, where she has been held for the past three years until her new trial — which Sullivan announced could be as soon as this fall.

Prosecutors must also still officially decide whether to try the case a second time, negotiate a plea deal with Clancy or drop the charges altogether.

Plymouth District Attorney Timothy Cruz at a press conference Friday said, “no decisions will be made today,” on how his office would proceed with the case.

But the DA insisted the case was about Clancy’s “cruel, calculated killings of three innocents” and about “getting justice for those three little babies.”

A hearing will be held on September 29th to determine what happens next. Like a “Choose Your Own Adventure” novel, there are many possible options for Lindsay Clancy, the defense, and the prosecution.

The prosecution could opt to offer Lindsay Clancy a plea deal. That would save everyone the cost and time of a second trial, and would likely see Clancy behind bars for a set period of time, followed by psychiatric care after incarceration. The prosecution could also decide to do the entire trial again, but this time insist that the jury be sequestered – which would have the added benefit of keeping the crazy circus at bay. And honestly, both sides should perhaps ask for a change of venue. At this point, I don’t know how a untainted jury pool can be found.

Which leads to the next option. The defense could not convince twelve jurors, even with Massachusetts’ very leinent interpretations of the insanity defense, that Lindsay Clancy was insane at the time of the murders. They might have better luck simply convincing one person – the judge – in a bench trial. This would depend on whether or not the prosecution reduced the charges to at least second degree murder. It would solve the problem of empaneling another jury, but it is a risk – for both sides. Clancy’s fate would be determined solely by the judge, which could either go well for the defense, or very badly. It might have worked with Judge Sullivan. It might not work with another judge. And the defense knows this was likely their best shot at an acquittal by reason of insanity.

Says he hopes the lone male jurors can sleep at night, and says he wasted 7 weeks of the jury’s time.

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) September 4, 2026

If there is a second trial, the prosecution should ask that cameras not be allowed in the courtroom. The public has already seen this circus once. The evidence at hand is not going to change. We don’t need to have a camera trained on family members testifying about what happened, or have conspiracy theorists scrutinizing Patrick Clancy for every single eyeblink. Taking the cameras out of the courtroom will have the automatic effect of lowering the temperature in the public discourse and on social media. Going back to courtroom artists and reporters and transcripts will strip the additional drama out of a case that is already sensational enough.

Perhaps, with a new trial, the discourse can focus on the three lives who were brutally ended by their mother, their bodies left to be discovered by their father. The defense successfully managed to make these murders something that just “happened” to Lindsay Clancy, even as they stipulated that she committed the crime, to eleven members of the jury. Yes, Massachusetts law gives extreme leniency to reasonable doubt for insanity, and puts that burden on the prosecution. But one juror could not get past the cold and methodical planning that went into executing these children. This was not a crime of passion – this took premeditiation and repetition. After strangling one child to death, Clancy went and murdered another one. And then the last one. First Dawson, then Cora, then baby Callan. The totality of destruction is something that cannot be excused away. And yet, perhaps there will never be a jury that can convict her. Both prosecution and defense have a lot of thinking to do before September 29th.

Featured image via succo on Pixabay, cropped, Pixabay license