Lindsay Clancy trial: What happens next after jury deadlock?

The murder trial of Lindsay Clancy has ended without a verdict after jurors were unable to agree on whether she was criminally responsible for killing her three young children, leaving prosecutors to decide whether one of America’s most closely watched trials will begin all over again.

Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on Friday after the Massachusetts jury reported for a third time that it could not reach a unanimous decision. Jurors had spent seven days deliberating following a trial lasting almost six weeks, but remained divided over whether Clancy should be held criminally responsible for the deaths of her children.

Clancy, 36, does not deny killing five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson and eight-month-old Callan at the family’s home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in January 2023. The central issue at trial was her mental state at the time. Her defence argued that she was experiencing postpartum psychosis and was not criminally responsible, while prosecutors maintained that she understood what she was doing and deliberately killed the children.

The mistrial does not mean Clancy has been found not guilty. Nor does it amount to a conviction. Her three first-degree murder charges remain in place and the case effectively returns to its pre-trial position while the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office considers what to do next.

District Attorney Timothy Cruz said after the mistrial that no immediate decision had been made about whether prosecutors would pursue a second trial. If they decide to proceed, a completely new jury would have to be selected and the case could be presented again.

A status hearing has been scheduled for September 29, when the next steps are expected to become clearer. Judge Sullivan indicated in court that he would favour trying the case again sooner rather than later if prosecutors decide to proceed, although the timing of any retrial has not yet been determined.

Another possibility is that prosecutors and Clancy’s defence could reach an agreement that avoids a second trial. Prosecutors could potentially pursue different or lesser charges, which could open the possibility of a plea agreement, although there is currently no indication that such an agreement will be reached.

For now, Clancy will remain at Tewksbury Hospital, the state-run facility where she has been receiving psychiatric and medical care. She remains in custody while the murder charges against her are unresolved.

The final days of the first trial became increasingly tense as it became apparent that jurors were struggling to reach agreement. The jury repeatedly told the court it was deadlocked, while Clancy’s defence raised concerns about one juror whom it alleged was failing to properly apply the legal standard of reasonable doubt.

The defence asked for that juror to be removed, but Sullivan declined after questioning the jury about its ability to continue following the law. When the panel again reported that it could not reach a unanimous decision, Clancy’s lawyers made an emergency attempt to involve Massachusetts’ highest court before a mistrial was formally declared. That application was denied.

Reports following the trial indicate the division within the jury was significant. The panel was understood to have been split 11 to one, although a deadlocked jury does not produce a legal verdict regardless of how heavily opinion may have fallen on either side.

That division could now become an important consideration for prosecutors. Before deciding whether to invest in another lengthy trial, they can review what happened during the first proceedings, consider what they learn about the jury’s deliberations and assess whether presenting the case differently could produce a unanimous verdict.

Both sides would also have an opportunity to reconsider their strategies. The first trial involved more than 80 witnesses and hundreds of exhibits, and a retrial would not necessarily be an exact repeat. Prosecutors and defence lawyers could change which evidence they emphasise, which witnesses they call and how they present their arguments.

What would not change is the fundamental question at the centre of the case. Clancy’s actions are not disputed. The legal battle has instead focused on whether her mental illness meant she was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of what she was doing and therefore should not be held criminally responsible for the deaths of her children.

If she were eventually convicted of first-degree murder, Clancy could face life imprisonment without parole. If she were found not guilty by reason of insanity, that would not necessarily mean she would simply leave custody; she could instead be committed to a psychiatric facility.

For now, however, neither outcome has been reached. After weeks of evidence and almost 40 hours of jury deliberations, the first trial has ended exactly where the central legal question began: unresolved.

Stay informed with the stories shaping health and social care.