The Lindsay Clancy case ends in a mistrial. Where might it go from here?

0:00It's consider this, where every day we go deep on one big news story. Today, the Lindsey Clancy trial ends in mistrial. Nearly seven days, that is how long it took a jury to deliberate on whether Clancy, a former nurse, should be held criminally responsible for killing her three children back in 2023. The early days of deliberation passed quietly behind closed doors, but as time went on, the jury was deadlocked and it seems like there was tension in the deliberation room. I'm going to ask you to go back out, keeping in mind all the instructions I gave you to go out and to continue your deliberations. That's Judge William F. Sullivan on Tuesday, imploring the jury to keep trying to reach a consensus. But on Friday, after days of uncertainty, a final result. 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.

1:01Consider this after five weeks, more than 80 witness testimonies, nearly seven days of deliberation. The murder trial that captivated the country has ended. What does this mistrial reveal about where this case may go next? From NPR, I'm Scott Detro. This message comes from SOTFA. Big days require deep, restorative sleep the night before. The kind of sleep SOTFA mattresses are designed for, and now save up to $625 on $1,000 or more at SOTFA.com slash NPR. This message comes from Rosetta Stone offering an alternative approach to language learning. Without relying on traditional memorization, the platform guides users to intuitively think in a second language. More information at RosettaStone.com This message comes from BetterHelp. Imagine carrying a backpack every day. Inside it, every conversation, every mistake, every expectation.

2:02It is easy not to notice how heavy it is until someone asks if you want to put it down. Sometimes feeling better starts exactly like that. Better isn't one size fits all. Better is personal. It's therapy tailored to the individual to help lighten what you carry. Match with a therapist who truly understands. Visit BetterHelp.com slash NPR. It's considered this from NPR. The trial of Lindsey Clancy ended in mistrial on Friday. WBUR's Deborah Becker has been following the case closely. My co-host Elsa Chang spoke with Becker outside of the courthouse shortly after the mistrial was declared. Tell us more about what happened in the courtroom today leading up to the judge declaring this mistrial. It sounds like there was a bit of drama. There was a lot of drama. These jurors, we should say, have been deliberating for about 36 hours.

3:02When Judge William Sullivan said he was going to declare a mistrial initially this morning, Lindsey Clancy's attorney asked for an emergency stay. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington asked to have one juror removed. He said to jury four person had reported that one hold out juror of the 12 would not follow the law. That was what was preventing a unanimous decision. So Massachusetts High School held an emergency hearing this afternoon, but eventually denied the defense request and then the judge called a mistrial. It was really emotional. Many of the jurors were visibly upset, some dabbed their eyes or covered their faces, and Judge Sullivan thanked them for their work during the seven weeks of this trial. I watched every day, day after day, week after week, all of you performing that duty that you're braced for.

4:02And it was tense throughout the day. Everyone was expecting this verdict. So the courthouse was super crowded. Spectators had to go to an overflow room that was set up. And of course, it was full of media today. Yeah, so much build up. So explain what happens when a judge declares a mistrial. They could theoretically start all over again, right? They could. The district attorney has to decide if there will be another trial and whether it will be on the same charges. Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz says he hasn't decided yet. He said no announcement is going to happen today. But he did say his office is charged with seeking justice for the three children that Lindsey Clancy admitted that she killed in 2023. This was and has always been about getting justice for those three little babies. And Cruz said he realizes that a lot of important issues were raised in this trial, such as the difficulties getting adequate postpartamental health care.

5:04But he said his office's job is to prosecute crimes. And that sediment actually was brought up during the prosecution's closing arguments. And you know, I contacted criminal defense attorney David Nathanson, who's not involved in this case. And he expects that if there is a second trial, Cruz would have to handle it differently. They brought all the vast resources of the state to bear on this woman, and they still weren't able to secure a conviction. And I know that Lindsey Clancy's defense lawyer has been pretty aggressive throughout this case. I'm curious, how did he react to all of this? Yeah, well, he said that he was, you know, really ready for another trial. And he said, you know, that it's likely that it will go, that it will go forward again. And everybody said this has really been difficult for Clancy. It's not right what she had to go through, because she greaves the loss of those three children. And Clancy remains held in the state hospital pending next steps in this legal process.

6:06That was WBUR's Deborah Becker speaking with my co-host, Elsa Chang. And to get some perspective on everything that unfolded in the courtroom on Friday, I talked to Nancy Gertner. She was a former federal judge and a current senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Welcome. Good to be here. I'm hoping as best as you can, you can get us inside the head of Judge Sullivan. If you had gotten that note from the jury this morning that they were deadlocked for the third time, what would you be thinking if you were presiding over this case? Well, it wasn't just the deadlock. They had said multiple times that they were deadlocked. It was when the four persons said that one juror, according to the reporting, quote, refuses to listen to the law. And at that point, what the judge did, which I would have done as well, is he brought all the jurors in this, I think, was yesterday. And he talked to each of them individually at Sidebar. One would hope to somehow shake off more information than just refuse to follow the listen to the law.

7:09In other words, have someone say, here's what this person said, or this person said, I don't care about Judge's instructions, or something. So he had a personal conversation with each juror at Sidebar. And then he turned to the jury and redid his reasonable doubt instructions. That didn't affect anyone that didn't. No one came forward. There was nothing more information that he had than refused us to listen to the law. Today, he gave another instruction in which he said, you have to follow my rules, even if you disagree with him. Yeah. So the problem at that point is refusing to listen to the law could mean I'm not going to follow the law, could mean I have some doubts, but they're not reasonable. I mean, I think it is ambiguous. And it's fraught when you have to knock off a deliberating juror, and he was cautious about not doing that. That's when I'm wondering, though, what is the best argument against the law? The argument against taking that step, if it was really one person

8:09and a matter of not wanting to follow the clear instructions, why not just remove the juror and replace them? Well, because I mean, 11 to one jury is an 11 to one jury. In other words, that's a deliberating jury. Typically, 11 to one doesn't hold. Usually the jury, the one will cave in. But if you had someone who actually had legitimate doubts about the case, you don't have a right to take them off the jury. But I think what I'm trying to get at is trying to get to the bottom of what this one juror was saying is incredibly difficult. Yeah. And he did it. He tried it through individual questioning of the jury. Then he tried to sort of hammer home his instructions again, and he got no further information. There are surely cases in which jurors have been removed mid-trial, not happen very often. Sometimes a juror overhears a racist statement. Sometimes you have a juror who is really intransigent and not getting along with the others. But he didn't have any more information than one juror refuses to listen to the law.

9:11And that wasn't enough. Judge, we've got just about a minute left. And I'm hoping you can help us understand just how limited a judge is and what your options are at that point. When you want to know more about what's going on here, it seems like there could be a serious problem. But if you do too much, you can tamper with a jury deliberation. What are you thinking in that moment? Well, the general rule is you do it as little as possible to interfere with a sitting jury and a deliberating jury. And when you go over what he did, none of what he did shook out anything further than the statement that the person was not following the law. I mean, I'm not sure that there was more that he could have done under the circumstances. We're going to find out now no question about it from the jurors. Again, there are ways in which a judge can intervene. But he had to have a threshold enough information to intervene. And the question was whether this was going to be enough. From all you could see from following this case, do you think he made the right decision? Took the right path here?

10:11I think he did. I think he did. In watching the case, I certainly thought that she was going to be acquitted based on the evidence that had come in. But I sympathized with the judge at this moment that he did what he could. Former Judge Nancy Gertner, now at Harvard Law School. Thank you so much for your time. You're very welcome. This episode was produced by Sophia, police a car, and a Lannabernet with audio engineering by A. W. Fane, our director as Alejandra Marquez-Hancy. It was edited by Sarah Handel and Tinby Air Mies. Our interim executive producer is Courtney Dorning. Thanks to our consider this plus listeners who support the work of NPR journalists and help keep public radio strong. Supporters also hear every episode without messages from sponsors and unlock bonus episodes of Consider This. You can learn more at plus.npr.org. It's Consider This from NPR. I'm Scott Detro. This message comes from Rosetta Stone.

11:12Rosetta Stone is designed to make language learning intuitive. It mimics how people naturally acquire speeches children, helping users read, write, and think in a second language. More at Rosetta Stone.com. This message comes from NetSuite, the AI-powered business management suite that securely connects all of your data. It's a unified suite that brings your financials, inventory, commerce, HR, and CRM into a single source. For the first time ever, you can try NetSuite next for free. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, go to netsuite.ai-sortwave. Built for every industry, ready for every boardroom. NetSuite.ai-sortwave.