Jurors in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial returned to Plymouth Superior Court in Massachusetts Thursday and resumed deliberating, after having informed the judge twice this week that they were deadlocked.
But they were continuing to deliberate as of around 3 p.m., when they presented the judge with another note that sparked a heated exchange in the courtroom.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington and Judge William Sullivan got into a heated debate when they came back into the courtroom. Reddington then wheeled Clancy up to speak with the judge at the sidebar.
The judge then spoke to each juror as they were again sworn in individually.
When the proceedings resumed, Sullivan reminded the jurors of his deliberation instructions and explained the definition of reasonable doubt. He reiterated the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
Sullivan then excused the jury and asked them to resume their deliberations.
The attorneys then went back up to speak to the judge where Reddington again began arguing with Sullivan.
In open court, Reddington said the issue was one juror "refuses" to listen to the judge's instructions on reasonable doubt.
There is a question as to whether Sullivan would again instruct them to return to deliberations if jurors were to send a third note saying they remained deadlocked, or, at that point, if he would call a mistrial - which potentially could set the stage for another long trial.
The jury is weighing whether Clancy bears criminal responsibility in the killings of her three children in 2023. Clancy, 36, has not disputed that she committed the killings, but has argued through Reddington that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time.
If the jury renders a verdict in the case, they could find her guilty of first-degree murder, second-degree murder or manslaughter; find her not guilty; or find her not guilty by reason of mental defect. If she were to be found not guilty by reason of mental defect, prosecutors would argue that Clancy should spend a lengthy period in a state mental health institution.
Prosecutors have three options in the event of a mistrial: Retry Clancy on the unresolved charges, negotiate a plea agreement or abandon the case.
If they sought to retry the case but believed a new jury would not unanimously convict Clancy of first-degree murder, prosecutors could opt to charge her with a lesser offense, such as manslaughter, said Peter Elikann, a Boston-based criminal defense attorney and Stamford native.
The parties also could negotiate a plea agreement to avoid another lengthy trial. Prosecutors, Elikann said, might approach the defense with an offer such as, "How about we drop the first-degree murder charge and have her plead to a lesser offense so we don't have to go through this again?"
"They would consider it a win-win situation for either side," he added.
Finally, prosecutors could decide not to retry the case, and Clancy would "immediately go free," Elikann said.
If a mistrial were to be declared, Clancy, who is being held at Tewksbury Hospital, a state psychiatric facility in Massachusetts, likely would remain there while prosecutors and the defense decide how to proceed, according to Elikann.
A retrial is the "most likely scenario," he said, though it could take up to a year to begin.
"I don't see the prosecutor dropping it and walking way," Elikann said.
Reddington has expressed a similar expectation if a mistrial were to be declared.
"(Plymouth District Attorney Timothy Cruz) would never drop it," Reddington said.
On Wednesday, jurors came back for the second time and informed Judge William Sullivan that they were deadlocked.
Sullivan gave the jury a prewritten instruction asking them to keep an open mind while considering the opinions of others. The instruction, known as the Tuey-Rodriguez charge in Massachusetts, sometimes is referred to as the "dynamite" charge.
The jury announcing twice that they were deadlocked - they told the court they were also at an impasse on Tuesday - caused speculation that the trial could end in a hung jury and mistrial. Were that to happen, prosecutors could choose to try Clancy again with a different jury.
Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse, is charged with three counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan Clancy. The children were strangled with exercise bands while Clancy's former husband, Patrick Clancy, was out picking up dinner on the night of Jan. 24, 2023. Prosecutors allege she bears criminal responsibility in their deaths.
Friends, family, the couple's nanny, the children's pediatrician, her former mother-in-law and Patrick Clancy, who testified for the prosecution all described Clancy as a loving mother who was struggling with mental health issues in the months before she strangled the children.
Throughout the trial Reddington challenged the mental health providers who treated Clancy in the months leading up to the killings and the rebuttal psychiatric experts the prosecution put on the stand for their lack of an accurate diagnosis and their lack of coordination between clinicians.
The trial is now in its sixth week. Jurors began deliberating last Thursday and have so far sat for more than 30 hours of deliberation.
If convicted of first-degree murder, Clancy could face life in prison.
Sign up for the Connecticut Briefing from CT Insider. Get the biggest headlines of the day from our network of journalists around the state.
This article originally published at Lindsay Clancy jury returns for deliberations as possibility of hung jury grows.