Premium

Defense Claims One Juror Is Creating Deadlock in the Lindsay Clancy Trial

Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool

The Lindsay Clancy jury appears to be deadlocked. They've been deliberating for six days now and seem unable to reach a conclusion. Today, the defense lawyer for Clancy is claiming that the deadlock is the result of a single stubborn juror who refuses to go along with everyone else. He asked that the judge remove the juror who refuses to obey the court's instructions about "reasonable doubt." Here's what defense attorney Kevin Reddington said today about the juror.

The court has an instruction from the foreperson of that jury that’s been working for a week now saying that there’s one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you’ve given him or her on reasonable doubt, and I suggest, respectfully, that the soft instruction that you gave them, saying at the sidebar, can you listen to the law as I instruct you, does not focus on the issue. It is the question is not sufficient enough.

It does not allow any foundation for a motion to remove the juror who refuses to accept your instructions on the law, on reasonable doubt. And if we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial, because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it’s a shame. It’s a real shame. And that’s why I object to the court’s ruling. I request that we have further inquiry. I request that — my motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt.

Obviously there are only two possibilities here. Either 11 jurors want to convict and one is refusing to go along or 11 jurors want to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity and one juror is refusing to accept that. However, between the two options, the fact that the defense attorney is furious about that one holdout juror suggests to me it's the latter, i.e. the holdout is preventing a finding of insanity which would be a win for the defense.

Here's Reddington's statement along with a response from one of the prosecutors. The prosecutor points out that deciding who is right and wrong about reasonable doubt is the job of the jury, not the attorneys.

As you can see, the judge rejected the defense request to replace that juror.

The judge said he didn’t think it was proper for him to take the action requested by Mr. Reddington. The exchange came after the judge called each juror into the courtroom on Thursday afternoon and questioned him or her one by one, then repeated his instructions to the jurors on the meaning of “reasonable doubt” and told them to resume their deliberations...

Though she does not deny strangling her children with exercise bands in January 2023, Ms. Clancy’s lawyers argued that she committed the killings while in the throes of postpartum psychosis. Prosecutors disputed the severity of Ms. Clancy’s condition and accused her of coldly plotting to kill her children while her husband was out of the house, and then attempting to die by suicide.

The jury of nine women and three men has the option of convicting Ms. Clancy of murder or manslaughter, or of finding her not guilty by reason of insanity.

Finally, here's the judge's instructions to the jury about reasonable doubt. He defines it pretty clearly. You can see Reddington, the defense attorney, nodding along as he speaks. Reddington clearly wants to see the jury reach a not guilty by reason of insanity decision, rather than a mistrial which would give the state another chance to try this case again.

The facts of this case seem to have really divided people, including an obvious divide between men and women. No one is saying if the lone holdout juror is a man or a woman, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out it's one of the three men.

The jury has now been sent home for the day and will return tomorrow morning.

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
David Strom 12:00 PM | September 03, 2026
Advertisement
Advertisement