Lindsay Clancy's lawyer drops courtroom bombshell — claims one juror 'refuses to listen to the law'
Inside the courtroom breakdown of the Lindsay Clancy murder trial, where a single holdout has pushed deliberations toward mistrial after 36 hours and six days.
1 / 5In the article
"If we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of the juror who has just spurned the instructions of this court, that's a shame, that's a real shame."
"If we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of the juror who has just spurned the instructions of this court, that's a shame, that's a real shame."
Reddington warns the judge that his cautious ruling risks letting a mistrial happen through inaction.
In context
The entire jury was then hauled back into the courtroom so Sullivan could read them his instructions on the law explaining the definition of reasonable doubt. But an impassioned Reddington said the judge’s approach wasn’t sufficient to address the questions about the juror. “If we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of the juror who has just spurned the instructions of this court, that’s a shame, that’s a real shame,” he said. “That’s why I object to the court’s ruling. I request that we have further inquiry. My motion is to remove this juror who refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt,” the lawyer said.
Receipt
"I don't feel it is proper to side with one side or the other of the deliberations. I don't feel it's appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or the eleven."
Sullivan explains why he refused to remove the juror, framing it as impermissible interference in deliberations.
In context
“I think what Your Honor has done by asking each juror if they are able to follow the law and then giving the instruction on reasonable doubt is appropriate,” Sprague added. Sullivan ultimately denied Reddington’s bid to have the juror removed, saying he couldn’t intervene in the process. “I don’t feel it is proper to side with one side or the other of the deliberations,” Sullivan explained. “I don’t feel it’s appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or the eleven.” Reddington later told reporters outside court that he believes the status of the juror — and whether he or she should remain on the panel — will be debated in open court Friday.
"I don't feel it is proper to side with one side or the other of the deliberations. Sullivan explained. I don't feel it's appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or the eleven."
Receipt
The forewoman's note said one juror "refuses to listen to the law" on reasonable doubt — a phrase that stopped the courtroom and left the defense demanding the person's removal.
The forewoman's note triggers the crisis: her exact wording frames the holdout as defying the law, not merely disagreeing.
In context
PLYMOUTH, Mass. — The trial of Lindsay Clancy — which has captivated the nation since July — took a bombshell turn on Thursday when it was revealed that there was one juror who disagreed with the rest following 36 hours of intense deliberation. The news, which came via a note from the forewoman that a single holdout “refuses to listen to the law” on reasonable doubt, left Clancy’s lawyer Kevin Reddington visibly raging — and demanding the person be kicked off the 12-person jury and replaced with an alternate. Follow The Post’s live updates on the Lindsay Clancy trial
note from The forewoman that a single holdout forewoman's note said one juror "refuses to listen to the law" on reasonable doubt left Clancy’s lawyer Kevin Reddington visibly raging — a phrase that stopped the courtroom and left the defense demanding the person's removal.
Receipt
After the arguments finished and the jury left the room, Reddington rubbed Clancy's back with his hand.
A small physical gesture reveals the emotional weight Reddington carries for Clancy amid the courtroom crisis.
In context
Throughout the arguments over the juror Clancy had a concerned look on her face, furrowing her brows and closing her eyes for a moment. It was the most concerned Clancy has looked during deliberations — after she burst into tears multiple times during the trial. Both Clancy and Reddington looked at the jury as the judge re-read them the instruction on reasonable doubt. Later, when the panel was out of the room and the arguments were finished, Reddington rubbed Clancy’s back with his hand. The judge sent the jurors back to the jury room to continue deliberations before he sent them home for the day around 4 p.m.
After the arguments were finished and the jury left the room, Reddington rubbed Clancy's back with his hand. The judge sent the jurors back to the jury room
Receipt
Clancy cut her neck and wrists, took prescription meds, and threw herself from a second-floor window — injuring her spine — immediately after strangling her three children.
The sequence of self-harm acts immediately after the stranglings anchors the defense's argument that Clancy wanted to die alongside her children.
In context
But prosecutors argue she carefully planned the killings because she wanted to die and wanted to take the children with her. Immediately after the stranglings, Clancy made a suicide attempt when she cut her neck and wrists, took some of her prescription meds and threw herself out of the window of her second-floor bedroom. She injured her spine in the fall and is now paraplegic and appears in court in a wheelchair. If you or someone you know is affected by any of the issues raised in this story, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-TALK (8255) or text Crisis Text Line at 741741.
children with her. Immediately after the stranglings, Clancy made a suicide attempt when she cut her neck and wrists, took some of her prescription meds, and threw herself out of the window of her from a second-floor bedroom. She injured window — injuring her spine — immediately after strangling her three children.
Receipt
Didn’t see the line you wanted? Choose your own
Make something from it
Ask a question
Ask about anything in this article. We’ll try to provide an answer.