Judge declares mistrial in Lindsay Clancy murder case after last-minute appeal rejected
The decision to call a mistrial came after jurors twice indicated they had been unable to reach a decision in the murder trial
The judge in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial has declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict, and the Massachusetts appeals court denied the defence's last-minute motion.
Listen to this article
The decision to declare a mistrial came after days of deliberation, with the jury reminded on Thursday by the judge of the legal tests required, before the members were sent back to consider their verdict once again.
Judge William Sullivan readied himself to declare a mistrial on Friday, given that Massachusetts law does not allow for majority decisions, with unanimous verdicts the only possible outcome.
Moments after declaring a mistrial on Friday, Judge Sullivan paused the formal declaration for one hour, allowing Clancy's lawyer the opportunity to lodge an emergency appeal.
However, the Massachusetts appeals court has denied the defence's last-minute motion.
Clancy doesn't deny the killings, but continues to insist that she was innocent.
In a case that gripped the US - and sleuths worldwide, courtesy of live-streamed court coverage - the former delivery nurse insisted she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.
The psychosis defence would ultimately see her found not guilty due to a lack of criminal responsibility.
Clancy’s defence lawyer, Kevin Reddington, had earlier objected to the move, insisting that one juror, deemed to be holding up the unanimous verdict, be removed.
In the note to the judge, jurors had claimed the single juror “refused to listen” to the court’s directions.
After the jury returned to court on Friday, the judge read out a note from the jury declaring it was deadlocked for a third time.
"It is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to."
With gasps heard in the courtroom, the judge asked the defence and prosecution for their thoughts.
Lindsay Clancy's lawyer, Mr Reddington, said the fact that the jury submitted a "very unusual" note meant that deliberations should continue.
Speaking later on outside the courtroom, Mr Reddington said the outcome came down to a single juror who did not follow the law on reasonable doubt.
He said his client and her parents were "robbed by one (juror) for whatever (their) agenda was".
"And I got a funny feeling that they (the jury) would have gone on for another week if they had to. So I hope that (juror) can sleep well at night."
He also said that he wanted the same 11 jurors who appeared to be in Lindsay Clancey's favour if there is a retrial.
"Obviously, if we didn't have that one individual, we would have had a verdict and we would be out of here," he said.
"I don't know if we will be able to get jurors that are not aware of this case anywhere, New York, Washington, Georgia, Japan, India, I don't know, anywhere."