Update (1226ET): Following 36 hours of deliberations over seven days, the jury in the Lindsay Clancy murder case remained deadlocked. Consequently, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial. However, he has granted the defense one hour to seek a stay from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Judge has given Reddington one hour to get a stay from the Supreme Judicial Court.
MISTRIAL ON HOLD in Lindsay Clancy case.— Brian Entin (@BrianEntin) September 4, 2026
Why does the defense want a stay of a mistrial? They hope to remove the holdout juror, avoiding a new trial and potentially securing Clancy’s freedom.
“This is a highly tense situation. Reddington urgently requested Supreme Judicial Court intervention just before the jury returned,” reported NewsNation’s Brian Entin.
Developing…
* * *
Update (1135ET): A mistrial was declared in the Lindsay Clancy case on Friday due to a holdout juror, as reported by Fox News‘ Bill Melugin.
BREAKING: Judge declares mistrial in Lindsay Clancy murder case after hung jury.
— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) September 4, 2026
* * *
Following Judge Sullivan’s refusal to dismiss a holdout juror in Lindsay Clancy’s triple-murder trial, her defense team is in turmoil. The jury must determine Clancy’s criminal responsibility for the deaths of her three children – Cora (5), Dawson (3), and Callan (8 months). Clancy’s defense argues that she was experiencing hallucinations due to postpartum psychosis, while the prosecution contends that she was not in psychosis when she committed the crimes.
On Thursday, the jury foreperson revealed that one juror was not following the judge’s instructions on reasonable doubt. Judge Sullivan individually questioned each juror and then provided a gentle reminder of the law before sending them back to deliberate.
Sullivan stated, “They’ve indicated that they can.” This statement was in response to a specific question, and he reiterated his decision.
Reddington, the defense attorney, demanded the removal of the holdout juror and requested further investigation, which Sullivan denied.
JUST IN: Lindsay Clancy looks at the jury as Judge William Sullivan dismisses them for the day.
The incident occurred shortly after Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, expressed frustration and called for the removal of a juror. https://t.co/r7g6JPmXyM pic.twitter.com/32z5efMIKP
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 3, 2026
According to Clancy’s defense, the holdout juror is male.
“It is evident that we have an individual who, under oath, stood before you yesterday… under oath, looked you in the eye, and lied,” Reddington stated. “That juror assured you that he would apply the law to the facts as requested.”
During Friday’s session, Reddington criticized Sullivan for his handling of the previous instruction and requested the removal or further questioning of the juror. Sullivan, however, refused, stating that he had carefully considered the matter and would not dismiss the juror. This led to a heated exchange between Reddington and Sullivan, with the latter defending his actions.
🚨 BREAKING: Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney clashes with the judge in court, calling him “SOFT”
DEFENSE: Stop being soft with jury instructions!
JUDGE: What do you want me to do?! Get a BRASS BAND?! I read the instruction as written by the… pic.twitter.com/dijDZAdqzG
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) September 4, 2026
No More Sidebars!
After the argument, Clancy’s defense team requested that no more sidebars be held for the remainder of the trial, and that all further proceedings be conducted in open court. The prosecution, on the other hand, suggested no further questioning of the jury and urged Sullivan to allow them to continue deliberations, asserting that the holdout juror displayed no signs of bias or inability to deliberate fairly.
Reddington disagreed, claiming that the juror’s personal issues were interfering with fair deliberation and insisted on his replacement with an alternate juror.
According to Massachusetts law, a mistrial can be declared if the jury is sent back for deliberations twice without reaching a verdict – a scenario that seems likely in this case.