Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial Friday in Lindsay Clancy’s murder case after jurors said they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict in the killings of her three children after a week of deliberating at the Plymouth Superior Court in Plymouth, Massachusetts.
The mistrial followed a dramatic dispute over an alleged 11-1 divide, with Clancy’s defense arguing that the lone holdout juror had acknowledged doubt but was refusing to properly apply the court’s instructions on reasonable doubt.
The alleged holdout is believed to be one of the three male jurors on the 12-person panel after defense attorney Kevin Reddington repeatedly referred to the unnamed juror as a male inside and outside court.
"[The other jurors] know that they were robbed — by one man — for whatever his agenda was, who stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurors that were so attentive, so beautiful, so wonderful and listened to this evidence," he told reporters after leaving the courthouse.
"And you could see how defeated they were sitting there. And I got a funny feeling they could go one for another week if they had to. So, I hope that guy can sleep well at night."
I noticed a good number of prominent pro lifers lauding the one holdout, essentially saying he was the only one pushing for a "guilty" verdict. However, it's important to understand the Massachusetts law in this context.
Erick Erickson broke it down.
Massachusetts is the only state in the nation where, if a judge allows a defendant to argue they were insane based on certain criteria, then the jury, when they deliberate, must assume the defendant is insane, and the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was actually sane.
How do you show Lindsay Clancy was sane when she strangled her three toddlers, slit her own throat, and jumped out a second-story window, rendering her permanently paralyzed?
That’s a pretty tough thing for the prosecution to show.
My guess is that the jury was not going for “not guilty” but “not guilty by reason of insanity” with one hold out.
Had the jury been unanimous in declaring not guilty by reason of insanity, Clancy likely would have been committed to a psych ward for the rest of her natural life. Did the one holdout juror not believe that was just punishment? Did he honestly believe Clancy was actually sane and thus needed to be locked up in a regular prison?
However you feel about the outcome of this trial, one aspect none of us can deny is three dead children have yet to receive the justice they richly deserve.
---------------------------------------
