Tensions flare as judge declines to remove holdout juror in Lindsay Clancy trial

**Tensions rise as judge refuses to dismiss holdout juror in Lindsay Clancy trial**

A judge has once again instructed the deadlocked jury in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial to continue working toward a verdict after a dramatic sixth day of deliberations.

Courtroom tensions escalated after the jury forewoman sent the judge a note saying one juror would not follow the court’s instructions on reasonable doubt.

The defence asked for the holdout juror to be removed, but the judge rejected that request.

Clancy, 36, is accused of three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her three children — Cora, five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan — at her family home in Massachusetts on 24 January 2023. The case has captivated the United States.

The former labour and delivery nurse does not dispute that she strangled her two sons and daughter in the basement of the house.

However, her lawyer says she was experiencing postpartum psychosis at the time and could not tell right from wrong.

The Plymouth jury, made up of nine women and three men, has now deliberated for about 35 hours without reaching a verdict.

The panel has twice before sent notes to the judge saying it could not agree unanimously, but Thursday marked the first sign of friction in the jury room.

Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, said in court that the forewoman had sent another note to Judge William Sullivan complaining that one juror was refusing to listen to the law on reasonable doubt.

Reddington and prosecutor Jennifer Sprague had a lively exchange with the judge in court.

Reporters in the room could not hear the conversation, but the BBC observed exasperated expressions and gestures from Clancy’s attorney.

Judge Sullivan then brought in each juror one by one and questioned them.

He reminded the panel that they must unanimously believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty in order to convict her of a crime.

In the end, Judge Sullivan said the holdout juror could remain and deliberations could go on.

“I don’t feel it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations,” the judge said.

Sprague, the prosecutor, said the judge’s instructions to the jurors were proper.

“There’s no way to determine what the deliberations are, who’s correct, who’s incorrect, nor should we attempt to,” she said.

Clancy, who was paralysed from the waist down after jumping out of a second-floor window at her home following the killings, was pushed in her wheelchair by Reddington to take part in a discussion with the judge about the deadlock.

Reddington appeared visibly upset and frustrated. He was later seen comforting Clancy, putting his arm around her as journalists left the courtroom.

Afterward, the defence lawyer told reporters that the forewoman’s note to the judge said there was one holdout on the jury who, as he put it, “refuses to listen to the law... on reasonable doubt”.

Reddington said he had proposed to the judge “a motion to remove the juror who refuses to accept your instructions on the law on a reasonable doubt”.

The defence lawyer said he had no idea what this lone juror was thinking and did not confirm the 11-1 split the forewoman had reported earlier.

The issue of the holdout juror is expected to come up again first thing Friday morning.

If the jury fails to reach a verdict and Judge Sullivan declares a mistrial, prosecutors would have to decide whether to retry the case.

Clancy faces life in prison without parole if convicted of first-degree murder.

If she is found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, or reason of insanity, she could be sent to a state psychiatric hospital.

Under US law, a jury must unanimously believe “beyond a reasonable doubt” that someone is guilty in order to convict them of a crime.

That standard is the strictest in the US legal system. It puts the burden on the government to prove the accused is guilty, rather than on the accused to prove innocence.