Judge officially declares Lindsay Clancy mistrial, three options now on the table

The emotional Lindsay Clancy murder trial has concluded after officially being declared as a mistrial.

Judge William Sullivan earlier today (4 September) declared that the case will go to a mistrial, but an emergency request for relief was issued by Clancy's defence to the Massachusetts Judicial Supreme Court.

Nearly three hours later, the appeal was denied.

Clancy's lawyer, Kevin Reddington, issued one final request to the judge for a hearing on a holdout juror to prevent the mistrial but that was also denied.

Judge Sullivan recalled the jury into the courtroom and declared a mistrial. He then thanked the jury for their work during the intense trial and dismissed them.

The defence never disputed that the 36-year-old killed her children - Cora, five, Dawson, three, and Callan, eight months - in January 2023 - with the trial focused on finding whether or not she is criminally responsible.

Her legal team have argued throughout that she cannot be held criminally responsible due to her post-pregnancy mental health.

Today's outcome means the former labour and delivery nurse will remain held at a psychiatric hospital awaiting a resolution of the criminal case, which remains at the same status as it was before the trial.

(Jonathan Wiggs/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

Clancy's attorney, Reddington, appealed to the judge to hold off on formally declaring a mistrial earlier on Friday, stating that he wants to appeal the holdout juror to the Supreme Court.

On Thursday, it was revealed that a single juror would not follow the court’s instructions about reasonable doubt, with a note delivered to the judge suggesting this was what was holding the 12 jurors - consisting of nine women and three men - from reaching a verdict.

Judge Sullivan then questioned each juror privately before reminding them of his instructions on reasonable doubt and sending them back to deliberate once again.

Meanwhile, Reddington called for the juror to be removed, accusing them of 'refusing to listen to the law'.

"I believe that this is a situation where there is a clear and present danger that this individual, for some reason... is taking a position that's intractable regardless of proof beyond a reasonable doubt," he said.

On Friday, after the announcement that the defence's appeal to the Supreme Court had been denied and the judge confirmed he would be declaring a mistrial, Reddington made one last appeal.

“We have a juror who has, according to the foreperson, is the only person who is basically holding out, so to speak, and unfortunately, they’re not holding out based on a good faith issue with the facts or with the law," Reddington argued.

"But they’re holding out as a result that, even though they have agreed and expressed doubt, they are refusing to apply the laws you’ve given.

Judge Sullivan denied the request, citing his reasoning from earlier in the day.

After telling the jury of the mistrial, Sullivan told them: “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.

“I understood that you all gave everything you could, and probably more than you thought you could, and so, on behalf myself, I just want to thank you so much."

Now the mistrial has been confirmed, the matter will be continued on September 29 for status, trial assignment and a motion to discuss rule 25.

There are now three different options prosecutors can take:

There are three options (Jonathan Wiggs/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

Option one

The first and perhaps most obvious option for prosecutors would be to retry Clancy before an entirely new jury. That would require another jury-selection process and a new trial date.

Option two

A second possibility would be negotiating a plea agreement.

Boston defence attorney and former prosecutor Brad Bailey, who is not involved in the case, said to Associated Press News that the prospect of facing another murder trial could prompt Clancy’s lawyers to explore whether prosecutors are interested in reaching a resolution.

Option three

The third option would be for prosecutors to decide against pursuing another trial and to drop the charges.

“Sometimes they decide not to, because of the sense that there may be the same result each time they try it, and because of the expenditures involved in trying the case to begin with, particularly when you have expert witnesses,” Bailey explained to the outlet. “Those are going to be expensive cases.”

“In Massachusetts, the burden is on the prosecution to prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt,” legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani added to PEOPLE.

“In Massachusetts, the prosecution has to prove that Lindsay Clancy is not insane. So, if there is any reasonable doubt that Lindsey Clancy is insane, the jurors have to acquit.”