Blaze MediaRight
The Lindsay Clancy murder trial has just hit a huge speed bump.The deadlocked Massachusetts jury of nine women and three men on Friday morning — its seventh day of deliberations — delivered a note to Judge William Sullivan in the Plymouth courtroom.'I would go so far as to reluctantly say that the individual has made a false statement under oath to this court.'Sullivan read the note aloud, which said, "It is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to."The jury has twice before indicated that it was deadlocked regarding the fate of Clancy — a 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse — whom the prosecution and defense agreed killed her three young children in 2023. The issue has been whether she is criminally responsible for their deaths due to her mental state, the Associated Press said.Sullivan asked the prosecution and defense for their thoughts. The prosecution said the jury note would "require a mistrial at this point." The defense disagreed and said the judge should send the jury back to deliberate further.The judge then stated, "Over the defendant's objection, I'm going to declare a mistrial at this point."But before the jury could be brought back in, Clancy's defense attorney Kevin Reddington asked Judge Sullivan for a chance to file an emergency appeal to the state supreme court.Sullivan told Reddington that he'd give him an hour to file a stay for the declaration of the mistrial before the jury is brought back in. The AP said the clock began ticking at 11:30 a.m.A major issue that surfaced amid Thursday's deliberations was, according to Reddington, that the jury foreperson said, "There is one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you have given him or her on reasonable doubt." Reddington then told the judge he wanted that juror removed.The AP in an earlier story reported that Reddington, after the jury was dismissed Thursday, indicated that Judge Sullivan would question that juror on Friday morning. However, Sullivan on Friday morning first asked the prosecution and defense how they wanted him to deal with the juror issue.While the prosecution told Sullivan it doesn't want him to question the juror, Reddington pushed back hard."This person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not-guilty verdict. He is not being honest with you at the sidebar. I would go so far as to reluctantly say that the individual has made a false statement under oath to this court," Reddington told the judge before adding that "the individual is refusing to apply your instructions on proof beyond a reasonable doubt to allow that jury a verdict of not-guilty."With that, the prosecution maintained that "we're in no position to judge whether the 11 are right or the one is right."Sullivan then ruled that he won't question the juror, telling both attorneys there's "no need for inquiry."That's when things got heated between the defense attorney and the judge.Reddington told Sullivan, "I would ask that you not just give them, as I described it yesterday, a soft inquiry, will you listen to my instructions. I would ask that you specifically direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and reinstruct them on that forcefully."The judge replied, "I think I did that yesterday, didn't I?"Reddington, in a clipped tone, told Sullivan that "you did it yesterday, you did it soft, you didn't do it forcefully."The now-annoyed judge shot back, "What do you want me to do, get a brass band? I read the instruction as written by the [Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court]. The fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that, but I'm not an actor. I've just given the instructions."Reddington argued back: "My point, judge, simply is that you're kind of glossing over the issue. The issue is this juror will not, according to that note, apply the law of reasonable doubt."Sullivan, more annoyed, replied that "I am specifically not glossing over this issue. I have thought about this issue long and hard. I know the defendant objects, but the characterization that I'm glossing over it, trust me, that's not the situation. I've been thinking about this for quite a while. ... I'm going to just give that instruction ... that they have to follow my instructions. I'm not going to reiterate the reasonable doubt at this point. It may come to that again as we go through it."The judge concluded his remarks to Reddington with some more humor: "And I'll try and give this with more pizzazz than I gave yesterday, I suppose."With that, the judge brought the deadlocked jury back into the courtroom and told them no future notes to the court should indicate how the panel stands numerically. In addition, Sullivan told the jury, "I wanted to remind you, as I instructed you earlier, it's your duty as jurors to accept the law as I stated to you ...
