Lindsay Clancy mistrial declared after jury deadlocks in murder case

Medal of Honor recipient Dakota Meyer delivered a blistering response Friday to expressions of sympathy for Lindsay Clancy following the mistrial in her murder case, arguing the focus should remain on her three children.

“Who cares how she’s feeling? Nobody cares,” Meyer said, describing the children’s deaths and adding that Clancy “should be” struggling with what happened.

“This is absolutely absurd, absurd and appalling that we are trying to find empathy over finding justice for these three innocent children who this woman brutally murdered,” Meyer said. “She knew what she was doing.”

Meyer acknowledged that Clancy’s state of mind was difficult for a “sane or rational human being” to comprehend but rejected that as a reason for sympathy.

“The fact that we’re having empathy for this human being, right? She is nothing less than pure evil,” Meyer said.

His comments came after a jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on whether Clancy was criminally responsible for killing her three children, leading Judge William Sullivan to declare a mistrial Friday.

Lindsay Clancy’s civil attorneys said Friday that failures by her healthcare providers contributed to Clancy killing her children, speaking out after a mistrial was declared in her murder case.

Boston attorney Rosemary Scapicchio said she does not believe Clancy is criminally responsible and argued that the way postpartum mental health conditions are discussed can minimize what women experience.

Another attorney said Clancy’s civil case will focus on alleged failures by medical providers who treated her, including claims that she was overprescribed medications and released without adequate treatment.

“We expect and we’ll continue to be pointing out the failures of the medical system, how it’s failed women, as Rosemary said, and how it’s failed Lindsay,” the attorney said.

The civil attorneys said those allegations will be explored further as their case moves forward, while the possibility of another criminal trial remains unresolved.

Lindsay Clancy will remain at Tewksbury State Hospital following the mistrial in her murder case, according to her defense attorney.

Asked where Clancy would stay after Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial Friday, attorney Kevin Reddington said her placement would not change.

“Oh, she’s at Tewksbury. She’ll stay at Tewksbury,” Reddington told reporters.

The court also said Friday that all previous bail orders would remain in effect as the case moves forward following the mistrial.

Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney lashed out at the apparent lone holdout juror following Friday’s mistrial, saying the rest of the panel was “robbed by one man.”

“They know that they were robbed by one man for whatever his agenda was, who stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurors,” Kevin Reddington told reporters outside the courthouse.

Reddington praised the other jurors as “so attentive, so beautiful, so wonderful” and said they had carefully listened to the evidence throughout the seven-week trial. He said he could see how “defeated” they appeared after Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial.

“I got a funny feeling that they would have gone on for another week if they had to,” Reddington said. “So I hope that guy can sleep well at least.”

Reddington had earlier asserted that the jury was split 11-1 in favor of acquittal and accused the holdout of acknowledging reasonable doubt but refusing to apply the law.

He also took aim at Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz, saying prosecutors had been “crushed” by the apparent split. “You don’t stand here on a bunch of microphones and crow about your victory because you, Tim, were crushed as well,” Reddington said.

Fox News Digital's Michael Ruiz contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump weighed in Friday on the Lindsay Clancy murder case after a deadlocked jury led Judge William Sullivan to declare a mistrial.

“It’s hard not to. It’s on television so much,” Trump said when asked whether he had followed the trial. “I followed it pretty much, but it’s a shame. It’s a horrible tragedy.”

Trump said he had seen reports of the hung jury and mistrial and predicted the case would be tried again.

“I assume there’s going to be another trial,” Trump said. “It’s a terrible situation.”

Trump also commented on the possible consequences Clancy could ultimately face, saying, “She did a horrible, horrible thing. Can’t be worse. But you’ll find out what the price to pay is.”

“There’ll be a price. It’s going to be a mental institution or jail or something,” Trump added. “But I guess they’re going to go through another trial. It’s too bad.”

The Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office has not yet announced whether it will retry Clancy. DA Timothy Cruz said Friday that no decision on a retrial would be made that day.

Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said Friday that prosecutors will not immediately decide whether to retry Lindsay Clancy after a deadlocked jury resulted in a mistrial.

“There will be no decisions made today regarding retrials,” Cruz said outside the courthouse. He said he plans to meet with his team and address the future of the case “at the appropriate time and in the context of an official court proceeding.”

Cruz thanked jurors for their work but delivered a forceful defense of his office’s decision to prosecute Clancy, saying the case has “always been about getting justice” for 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan.

“The facts are Lindsay Clancy killed her three children, and the evidence suggested to us that she was in control of her actions when she committed those homicides,” Cruz said.He maintained that first-degree murder charges were warranted based on the investigation and rejected the suggestion that the prosecution was about broader debates over postpartum depression or the mental health care system.

“This case, however, was about Lindsay Clancy and what she did on January 24th, 2023 and the cruel and calculated killing of three innocents,” Cruz said.

When a reporter later pressed Cruz on why he would not immediately commit to another trial, he reiterated that a decision would come later. Cruz also grew heated when challenged over the prosecution, responding, “Insensitive is killing three children. Insensitive is ignoring those facts.”

Judge William Sullivan thanked and formally discharged the Lindsay Clancy jury Friday after declaring a mistrial, invoking Winston Churchill as he reflected on the panel’s lengthy service.

Sullivan recalled Churchill urging British citizens during World War II to “brace for our duties,” telling jurors the phrase reminded him of their commitment to serving through the lengthy and difficult trial.

“You brace for that duty, you perform that duty,” Sullivan told the panel, saying jurors had given “everything you could, and probably more than you thought you could.”

Sullivan told the jurors they “should be proud” of their work and asked them to remain briefly so he could personally thank them before discharging them.

Judge William Sullivan officially declared a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy murder case Friday afternoon after the jury reported it could not reach a unanimous verdict.

“Members of the jury, at this point, I’m going to declare that the jury is deadlocked and I’m going to declare a mistrial,” Sullivan told the 12 deliberating jurors and six alternates after they returned to the courtroom.

The declaration came after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court denied Clancy’s emergency request for relief, lifting a temporary stay that had put the mistrial on hold. Sullivan said he intended to declare the mistrial once the SJC ruling came down.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington made one final attempt to stop the mistrial, raising a federal constitutional argument and citing First Circuit precedent that he said allows a judge to remove a deliberating juror for good cause when that juror refuses to follow the law.

Reddington again asked Sullivan to hold a hearing into the juror at the center of the dispute, arguing the juror had acknowledged doubt but was refusing to apply the court’s instructions. Sullivan rejected the request.

“For reasons, as I stated earlier this morning, that request will be denied,” Sullivan said before bringing the jury into the courtroom and formally declaring the mistrial.

A Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court justice heard arguments Friday afternoon on Lindsay Clancy’s emergency bid to intervene in her murder trial after jurors reported they could not reach a unanimous verdict.

During the hearing, Associate Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt walked through the timeline of the jury’s repeated deadlock notes and its later message that one juror was unable to follow instructions on reasonable doubt. Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague argued Judge William Sullivan acted within his discretion when he questioned each juror Thursday and accepted their assurances that they could follow his instructions.

Clancy’s defense argued the latest dispute goes beyond jurors simply disagreeing about the evidence. Attorney Dana Goldblatt pointed to the foreperson’s note stating that one juror had acknowledged doubt but was refusing to apply it “as the law states.”

“The statement that this is just about deliberations or about a disagreement I think is entirely refuted by the substance of the note,” Goldblatt argued. She said an allegation that a juror is refusing to follow the law requires further inquiry rather than being protected as part of the jury’s private deliberations.

Sprague countered that nothing in the jury notes showed bias, outside influence, a lack of impartiality or an inability to deliberate. She argued the notes instead reflected a disagreement among jurors over how to apply the law and said Sullivan correctly declined to probe further into deliberations.

Wendlandt told the parties she understood the defense’s distinction and complimented its quickly prepared filing, saying, “Although it was quick papers, it was good papers.” The justice then took the matter under advisement, saying she needed to make a decision.

Fox News Digital's Michael Ruiz contributed to this report.

Lindsay Clancy’s defense is asking Massachusetts’ highest court to intervene in the jury dispute that pushed her murder trial to the brink of a mistrial, arguing the trial judge failed to adequately investigate allegations that one juror is refusing to follow the law.

READ IT: Find the full court document here

In an emergency filing with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Clancy’s attorneys asked a single justice to order Judge William Sullivan to further question the juror. Alternatively, they want the juror barred from further deliberations unless Sullivan first determines through individual questioning that the juror is willing and able to follow his instructions.

The defense points to the foreperson’s note indicating the juror had “acknowledged doubt” but was refusing to apply it to the case “as the law states.” Sullivan previously declined to further question or remove the juror, finding there was not enough evidence that the juror was refusing to follow the law.

Clancy’s attorneys now argue the dispute goes beyond a disagreement among jurors and raises questions about whether the juror is biased against people with mental illness. Clancy presented a lack-of-criminal-responsibility defense at trial, and her attorneys argue that an impartial jury is a fundamental constitutional right.

The emergency petition also argues Sullivan should not disregard information about possible juror misconduct simply because it touches on the normally private deliberation process.

The defense claims the judge has failed to exercise his responsibility to determine whether the juror can fairly apply the law.

“The judge appears to be abdicating the responsibility to weight the evidence of juror malfeasance,” the defense said. “In other words, this is not abuse of discretion; it is failure to exercise discretion at all.”

“A mistrial at this point is entirely avoidable, but only if the court does its job,” Clancy’s attorneys added.

The emergency filing came after Sullivan moved to declare a mistrial when jurors said they could not reach a unanimous verdict, but paused the declaration to give the defense time to seek relief from the SJC.

Court proceedings in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial are in recess until at least 2 p.m. Friday as the defense seeks emergency intervention from Massachusetts’ highest court.

A court officer announced that no one will be brought into the courtroom before 2 p.m.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington earlier told reporters that his emergency appeal had been filed with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Judge William Sullivan paused formally declaring a mistrial after jurors said they could not reach a unanimous verdict, giving the defense time to seek emergency relief.

Lindsay Clancy defense attorney Kevin Reddington said as he walked out of the courtroom Friday afternoon that the defense’s emergency appeal has been filed with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Fox News Digital has not yet seen a copy of the filing.

Judge William Sullivan earlier moved to declare a mistrial after jurors said they could not reach a unanimous verdict, but paused the declaration to give Reddington time to seek emergency intervention from a single justice of the state’s highest court.

Retired Massachusetts Judge Jack Lu described Lindsay Clancy defense attorney Kevin Reddington’s last-minute effort to halt a mistrial as a “fairly extreme request.”

Reddington asked Judge William Sullivan to hold off on formally declaring a mistrial while the defense seeks emergency intervention from a single justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

“The judge makes a wise move and says, ‘I’ll give you an hour to go to the single justice of the higher court,’” Lu said.

Lu explained that the higher court could then decide whether proceedings should continue or be delayed, giving Sullivan a quick answer on how to proceed before formally ending the trial.

Fox News Digital's Michael Ruiz contributed to this post.

Constitutional law attorney Jonathan Turley called the latest twist in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial “perfectly bonkers” after Judge William Sullivan paused his planned mistrial declaration to give the defense time to seek emergency relief from Massachusetts’ highest court.

Turley questioned why defense attorney Kevin Reddington waited until Sullivan was preparing to declare a mistrial to pursue the challenge. “You’re just a bit late on that, pal,” Turley said, adding that many judges may have simply proceeded with declaring a mistrial.

Turley also stressed that an apparent 11-1 split is still not a unanimous verdict. 

“If you’re one number off from the Powerball lottery ticket, you still don’t have a winning ticket,” he said. “So it may be 11-1, but that is still a mistrial.”

Turley was also skeptical that Reddington’s emergency challenge would succeed, particularly questioning his reference to the Americans with Disabilities Act. If a mistrial ultimately stands, Turley said prosecutors would then have to weigh whether to retry Clancy and whether they believe another jury could reach a unanimous verdict.

If a mistrial is formally declared in the Lindsay Clancy murder case, it would end the current trial without a verdict — but it would not mean Clancy is acquitted or that the case is over.

A hung jury occurs when jurors cannot unanimously agree on a verdict. Because no verdict is reached, prosecutors would have the option to try Clancy again, and double jeopardy would not prevent a retrial.

The Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office would decide whether to pursue another trial. If prosecutors choose to retry the case, the process would begin again with a new jury.

Clancy would not be released simply because of a mistrial. Her case would return to pretrial status, with Clancy remaining detained while awaiting further proceedings on the first-degree murder charge.

Judge William Sullivan said Friday he would declare a mistrial after jurors reported they could not reach a unanimous decision, but he paused the declaration for one hour to allow Clancy’s defense to seek emergency intervention from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney is turning to Massachusetts’ highest court in an attempt to stop Judge William Sullivan from formally declaring a mistrial.

Kevin Reddington is seeking what is known as a Chapter 211, Section 3 petition. In simple terms, it asks a single justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) to step in and review a lower court’s decision before the normal appeals process plays out.

This type of request is generally reserved for extraordinary circumstances — when a party argues a serious error has occurred, an important right is at risk and waiting for a regular appeal would not provide an adequate solution.

Here, Reddington appears to want the SJC to review Sullivan’s refusal to further question or remove the juror whom the defense claims acknowledged reasonable doubt but would not apply the court’s instructions. Sullivan paused his planned mistrial declaration for one hour to give the defense time to seek emergency relief.

Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney made an eleventh-hour bid Friday to stop Judge William Sullivan from formally declaring a mistrial, asking for time to seek emergency intervention from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Sullivan had already ruled that he would declare a mistrial over the defense’s objection after jurors reported they could not reach a unanimous verdict. But as the court prepared to bring the jury back into the courtroom, Kevin Reddington asked Sullivan to hold off.

Reddington said he wanted to pursue an emergency appeal to a single justice of the state’s highest court, calling the situation a “travesty” and raising concerns about the juror at the center of the panel’s dispute. He said he could file the request Friday and potentially argue it on an emergency basis.

Sullivan clarified that Reddington was seeking an emergency stay and agreed to give the defense one hour to petition the SJC before bringing the jury back.

“I’ll hold off for an hour,” Sullivan said.

Reddington suggested that if he succeeds, jurors could potentially be required to return Tuesday. If the effort fails, he said they would not need to return.

Judge William Sullivan moved to declare a mistrial Friday after jurors said they could not reach a unanimous verdict, but paused the declaration for one hour to allow Lindsay Clancy’s defense to seek emergency intervention from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial 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,” Sullivan read from the jury’s latest note.

Prosecutors argued a mistrial was required because the jury had already received a deadlock instruction and deliberated at length afterward. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington urged Sullivan to send jurors back again, arguing the panel had formally reported a deadlock only once before.

Sullivan rejected that request, saying the jury had not asked to continue deliberating. “Under the statute and the case law, I don’t feel I have any choice but to declare a mistrial,” he said.

Reddington then asked Sullivan to determine whether jurors had reached agreement on any individual charges, citing the Karen Read case and arguing that any agreed-upon verdicts could have implications for double jeopardy. Prosecutors objected, arguing such questioning would improperly delve into deliberations and that the circumstances differed from the Read case.

“Over the defendant’s objection, I’m going to declare a mistrial at this point,” Sullivan ruled.

Reporters and members of the public have been allowed back into the courtroom in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial Friday morning amid an unexplained development.

Clancy is sitting quietly at the defense table alongside her attorney, Kevin Reddington.

Prosecutors have also returned to the courtroom, along with the Plymouth County district attorney. No guidance has been given on why the parties, press and public were called back inside.

The development comes after jurors resumed deliberations earlier Friday following a contentious hearing over the juror at the center of the panel’s apparent 11-1 divide.

Lindsay Clancy defense attorney Kevin Reddington arrived at court Friday accompanied by several people who appeared to be providing security before a fiery courtroom battle over the juror at the center of the panel’s apparent 11-1 divide.

Asked before court about the split and concerns surrounding the juror, Reddington told reporters, “We’ll see what Judge Sullivan does with the issues.”

When pressed to clarify his previous comments about the 11-1 divide, Reddington pushed back, saying, “Maybe you guys ought to stop trying to hear what’s said over the white noise,” before adding, “Get off the sidebars.”

The remark came after Reddington filed an emergency motion Friday seeking to end sidebars and have the remaining proceedings conducted in open court.

During the hearing, Reddington argued that the juror had acknowledged doubt but was refusing to properly apply it to the verdict, accusing the juror of looking Judge William Sullivan “in the eye and lied” when previously asked whether the court’s instructions could be followed. Sullivan rejected Reddington’s request to further question the juror and sent the panel back to continue deliberations.

A jury consultant who was inside the courtroom during a dramatic day in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial described a noticeable shift in the atmosphere as questions emerged about one juror and the panel’s application of reasonable doubt.

“Boy…some courtroom drama yesterday,” jury consultant Susan Constantine said. She recalled seeing attorneys approach the judge and jurors brought out one by one to be questioned as the court addressed concerns surrounding the panel’s deliberations.

Constantine said the jury had previously offered few clues about what was happening behind closed doors, calling it the “ghost jury.” But the latest developments suggested to her that jurors had been struggling to reach agreement. She said the question now is whether the juror at the center of the dispute does not understand the reasonable doubt standard or is simply “digging their heels” in.

Ronald Estanislao, who served as a juror in Karen Read’s first trial before it ended with a hung jury, described the difficulty of reaching a unanimous decision after days of deliberations. “It was challenging, to say the least,” he said, adding that the responsibility requires jurors to consider the evidence and charges before them.

Asked whether deliberations in the Read case became heated, Estanislao compared the discussions to a “Thanksgiving dinner table” where people expressed different opinions while reviewing the evidence.

Clancy jurors entered their seventh day of deliberations Friday after more than 36 hours of discussions. Her defense has argued that one juror is refusing to properly apply the court’s instructions on reasonable doubt, while prosecutors have characterized the dispute as part of the normal deliberative process.

Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney accused the juror at the center of the panel’s apparent 11-1 divide of lying to the judge under oath — and appeared to identify the holdout juror as a man.

“Clearly, judge, we have a person who, under their oath, stood in front of you yesterday when you did the individual voir dire. And according to this information under oath, looked you in the eye and lied,” Kevin Reddington told Judge William Sullivan Friday morning.

“That juror told you that he would be able to apply the law to the facts as you asked them. And based on this note from this juror, it clearly and unequivocally indicates that they are basically 11 to 1. And this person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not guilty verdict,” Reddington continued.

Reddington later again referred to the juror as “he,” arguing: “But when you have a situation where you have not one but two notes, that clearly indicates that this individual has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict, he is, as the law states, he is not being honest with you at the sidebar.”

Sullivan declined to further question the juror, saying the jury’s note did not establish that the individual was refusing to follow the law. The judge referred to the individual as “the juror” and “this person” before sending the panel back to continue deliberations.

Judge William Sullivan declined Friday to further question the juror at the center of a dispute in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial, rejecting defense attorney Kevin Reddington’s argument that the apparent holdout is refusing to follow the law.

Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague urged Sullivan to send the jury back to deliberate without additional questioning or instructions. She argued the jury’s latest note showed a disagreement over how to weigh the evidence — not bias, outside influence or an inability to deliberate. “What we have here is a note that indicates a disagreement about how to weigh the evidence,” Sprague said. “And that’s deliberation.”

Reddington strongly disagreed, arguing a note from the foreperson indicated 11 jurors believe the remaining juror has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict. Reddington accused that juror of making a “false statement under oath” after telling Sullivan during questioning Thursday that they could follow the court’s instructions.

Sullivan sided with prosecutors, saying he saw “no showing of the need for an inquiry.” The judge said acknowledging some doubt does not necessarily mean a juror is refusing to follow the law because reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt. He also noted that every juror said Thursday that they could follow his instructions.

Reddington objected, citing the Sixth Amendment and arguing the issue presented a constitutional problem. He asked Sullivan to “forcefully” reinstruct the jury on proof beyond a reasonable doubt and said the judge’s instruction Thursday had been too “soft.”

“You did it yesterday. You did it soft. You didn’t do it forcefully,” Reddington said.

“What do you want me to do? Get a brass band?” Sullivan responded, noting that he had read the reasonable doubt instruction provided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney filed an emergency motion Friday seeking to end all courtroom sidebars and have the remainder of her murder trial handled in open court.

Attorney Kevin Reddington asked the judge for a standing order barring further sidebars and requiring all trial-related proceedings to take place in open court.

The filing comes after 11 jurors raised concerns about one juror as the panel deliberates Clancy’s fate.

Reddington sought to have that juror removed Thursday, but the judge declined and instructed the jury to continue deliberating. A jury inquiry is expected in open court Friday morning.

Lindsay Clancy’s attorney said a jury inquiry is expected to be held in open court Friday morning following a dramatic day of deliberations in her murder trial.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington told reporters after court Thursday that the inquiry is expected to take place at 9 a.m., though he said he did not yet know exactly what the judge would ask.

The development comes after the jury’s foreperson indicated that 11 jurors had reached a decision while one juror remained a holdout. Questions have emerged over whether that juror is following the judge’s instructions on reasonable doubt.

Reddington sought to have the juror removed Thursday, but the judge declined and instructed the jury to continue deliberating. The judge also reviewed the meaning of reasonable doubt under Massachusetts law before dismissing jurors for the day.