The Lindsay Clancy Trial Mini Series: The Verdict

0:00Hi, I'm Gemma Bath, host of True Crime Conversations, and welcome to our mini-series unpacking the trial of Lindsay Clancy and Massachusetts. The case, the entire world can't take their eyes off. In our last episode, we took you through the defences case. In this episode, we are discussing the verdict or lack thereof. At the conclusion of the closing arguments, the jurors entered into deliberations. In this instance, the jury was made up of nine women and three men, and they had five different outcomes to consider. The first would be a not guilty ruling. However, this was always highly unlikely, as the defence did not deny the fact that Lindsay killed five-year-old Kora, three-year-old Dawson and eight-month-old Kallen in January 2023. The second was a not guilty by reason of insanity ruling, which the defence argued for, giving evidence to show their case, that Lindsay was in the grips of post-partum psychosis and couldn't be held responsible for her actions.

1:02For this ruling, the prosecution would have had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy was criminally responsible for killing the children. The third option was first-degree murder, which carries the harshest penalty in Massachusetts with a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. The fourth option, second-degree murder. This differentiates from first-degree murder as it applies to crimes where there was unlawful killings done in malice or recklessness, but without pre-planning. For this, the jury might not be convinced that Clancy had planned out the killings, but that she saw an opportunity to commit them at the time. This also carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison, but with a chance of parole. The fifth and final ruling the jury could have reached was manslaughter. For this, they would have had to come to the conclusion that Clancy had unintentionally killed the kids by reckless conduct. This carries a maximum sentence of 20 years, which applies per count.

2:06If the jury couldn't reach a unanimous decision, it results in a mistrial. A decision no one involved wanted. After four days of deliberating on Tuesday, September 1, 2026, the jury expressed that they were in a deadlock. They could not come to a unanimous decision, they said. Judge William F. Sullivan told the jury, After many hours of deliberation, we are unable to come to a unanimous decision. I brought you back out because I know that this was a long trial. I know there are over 80 witnesses. There are over 300 exhibits. But because of that, I'm going to ask you to go back out, keeping in mind all the instructions that I gave you, to go out and to continue your deliberations at this time. And so with that, I'm going to ask you to go back out. Like I said, keep in mind the instructions I gave you, reviewing the evidence, and I'd ask you to resume your deliberations at this time.

3:13By the conclusion of a fifth day of deliberations, they had still not come to a verdict. They went to the judge again, and he issued a special instruction to encourage further deliberation. The official term for this is called the Allen charge, or in Massachusetts, it's referred to as the Tué redregest charge. In layman's terms, it's just an official word of encouragement to reach a verdict. But it's usually the step before declaring a mistrial. I'm going to give you another instruction, all right? And it's this. Our Constitution and laws provide that in a criminal case, the principle way for deciding questions of fact is by the verdict of a jury. In most cases, perhaps strictly speaking in all cases, absolute certainty cannot be attained, nor is it expected. The verdict to which a jury agrees must be their own, result of their own convictions, and not a mere acquiescence, and the conclusions of their fellow jurors.

4:15Yet, in order to bring 12 minds to a unanimous result, you must examine the questions submitted to you with candor, and with proper regard, and deference, and respect to the opinions of each other. You should consider that it is desirable that the case be decided. In the present case, a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the Commonwealth to establish every element the crime charge beyond reasonable doubt. If you were left in doubt, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and must be acquitted. However, in conferring together, you ought to pay proper respect to each other's opinions, and listen with an open mind to each other's arguments. With that, I now ask you to return to your deliberations with these thoughts in mind. Thank you. Lindsay Clancy's lawyer, Kevin Reddington, had this to say outside court. The fact that they have not said that they had done is very, very heartening.

5:19Obviously, they're working very hard. That's what I keep saying. They're obviously working very hard. Thank you. Any idea what's happening in that jury room? What's your, what's the top of mind for you at the end of the day today? It's been 24 hours of deliberations. What are you thinking about? Just nothing. How is that? They're encouraged by the fact that they, you know, this morning, they said that they couldn't reach a unanimous verdict that they're back and they want to come tomorrow. They kept that. Yeah, it's obviously very encouraging. I think that they're showing that they're more than willing to keep working at it. On the sixth day, the jury came back deadlocked a third time, but they also had something else to say. In their note to the judge, the panel indicated that one juror was not following guidance on reasonable doubt. The jury was then individually sworn in again, and the judge asked them one by one if they could follow the instructions of the law. On the seventh day, the defence tried to get that sole juror removed to spare the proceedings

6:23from moving to a mistrial. According to Reddington, this lone juror was holding out on a unanimous verdict. By the way, we don't officially know the exact split among the jury, or the verdict that the majority might have reached. If a jury consists of people and there's one person who is refusing to actually apply the law to the facts as determined for reasons that are not arising out of the case, but are personal to the juror's position regarding their review of their oath and how they should apply their oath. In other words, if it's personal to this individual, which I believe it is, based on the first question that you had, and I have never seen a situation like this where a four person on the jury is so courageous as to speak on behalf of 11 jurors and indicate the jury number, which I will not mention,

7:30and I quote, has made statements acknowledging doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states. Clearly, Judge, we have a person who under their oath stood in front of you yesterday when you did the individual of why dear, and according to this information, under oath, looked you in the eye and lied. Reading Tins discussions with the judge got quite hated. After Judge Sullivan said he saw no reason to do a further inquiry with the juror in question. I would ask that you not just give them as I described it yesterday, a soft inquiry, where you would listen to my instructions. I would ask that you specifically direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and re-instruct them on that forcefully. Yes. You did it yesterday. You did it soft. You didn't do it forcefully.

8:32I'm asking maybe what you want me to do. I want to get a brass band. I read the instruction as written by the SJC. The fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that, I'm not an actor. I've just given the instructions. Well, 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. And that's why I've requested, you know what I've requested. Right. I know what my objection is. But it just encased the records, I am specifically not glossing over this issue. I have thought about this issue long enough. I know the definitive jacks, but the characterization that I'm glossing over it, trust me, that's not the situation. The prosecution disagreed that the juror should be dismissed. We have the note from the jury. There's no way to determine what the deliberations are,

9:35who's correct, who's incorrect, nor should we attempt to, because that's part of deliberations. 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. Under Commonwealth versus Ralph, so we do not have an objection to what the questions or the re-instruction. After several more hours of deliberation, in which the jury asked to see the knife and the bags of pill bottles again, the jury once again indicated that they were still deadlocked. Judge Sullivan said he intended to declare a mistrial, but first granted the defence one hour to file an emergency appeal. In that, Readington asked the Massachusetts Supreme Court to order the trial court to further question the holdout juror or remove them. The request was denied. Judge Sullivan then went ahead with calling a mistrial. I'm going to declare that the jury is deadlocked, and I'm going to declare a mistrial.

10:36I just wanted to make a comment. I'm kind of a history buff. During World War II, Winston Churchill was the prime minister for England. When England pretty much stood against not to Germany alone. And so Churchill, oftentimes, had to talk to the citizens and say, let us brace for our duties. I always liked that phrase, and I thought of that phrase when all of you were agreeing to be on this jury. You agreed to brace for that duty. In each one of you knew how long the case was going to go, you knew how difficult the case was going to be to listen to facts wise, but still you braced for that duty. And I just kind of wanted to also let you know, I watched every day, day after day, week after week, all of you performing

11:40that duty that you braced for. And I just kind of wanted to let you know, I understood how hard everybody worked in this case, I understood that you all gave everything you could, and probably more than you thought you could. And so on behalf of myself, I just want to thank you so much, that you should be proud for what you did. You braced for that duty. You performed that duty. And I just kind of wanted to thank you, but half myself, in behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Thank you so much. So what happens next is the biggest question on everyone's lips. Prosecutors now have to decide whether to try again with a new jury, which means a whole new trial. And yes, every witness needs to be recalled. If you remember, the prosecution had close to 70. Prosecutors do have other options. They could offer Lindsey Clancy a plea deal. Or thirdly, the district attorney's office could decide not to retry the case, particularly if they think

12:41the same result might occur. So what does all of this mean for Lindsey? Just because a mistrile has been called, she isn't a free woman. She remains in a mental health facility held under the same murder charges while the decision is made on next steps. If a retrial is called, another real option could be that they go ahead with a judge alone trial instead. But that decision belongs to the defendant, AKA Lindsey and her team. They have a right to a jury trial and would have to request a judge alone or bench trial instead. A status hearing has been set for September 29, so that's the next update we'll receive in Lindsey's case. He is reading to an outside court. You said you were ready to retry this on Monday. Do you still feel like you could turn this around that quickly? Yeah. And you feel there is something you would do differently with the second trial? Why would I? I won the case. How are they going to change things up? I mean, they're going to come in. They're going to have the same

13:45witnesses. I can change that quicker. He is the DI Timothy Cruz. Been in the end. I understand that this has been an emotional trial for everybody. It's emotional to the ductsbury community. It's even emotional for you members of the media. But in the end, I bring it all back to the child victims in this case. Korra, Dawson and Callan. This was and has always been about getting justice for those three little babies. Lindsey's ex-husband Patrick released a statement about an hour after the mistrial was called. It thanked the jurors for their commitment and their perseverance. He said the prospect of reliving the tragedy through another trial was extraordinarily painful. Reddington had this to say when asked how Lindsey was doing. Not good. Not good. But with the prospect of a new trial looming, he said this.

14:52So Judge Sullivan is indicating that we're looking at some time in the fall and she'll be ready. So now we're back to the start. The case is in the same spot as it was pre-trial. Except this time, picking an impartial jury is going to be much trickier, given the way this case has captured global attention. Thanks for listening to True Crime Conversations. When we get updates in this case, we'll release more episodes of our Lindsey Clancy miniseries. But for now, thanks for being here. We'd love your feedback on Apple podcasts and Spotify. We'll be back on Thursday with our regular episode.