A Massachusetts jury deliberating the fate of Lindsay Clancy, on trial for killing her three children, deadlocked 11-1 in favor of a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict -- with one holdout juror standing between the case and a resolution. Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial in Plymouth Superior Court on September 4, 2026, after Massachusetts' highest court declined to intervene.
The case
Clancy was charged in the 2023 killing of her three children -- Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months old -- at the family's home in Duxbury, Massachusetts. Her defense did not dispute what happened; it argued she was not criminally responsible because of severe postpartum psychosis. Prosecutors, led by Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz and Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague, argued at trial that Clancy was, in Sprague's words, a "functioning mom" who knew "right and wrong" and had engaged in "methodical planning" -- the state's case for full criminal responsibility rather than insanity. The trial, which included roughly five weeks of testimony, went to the jury after closing arguments on August 27, 2026.
Seven days, one holdout
The jury deliberated across roughly seven calendar days, totaling an estimated 36 to 40 hours of actual deliberation, telling the judge on two separate occasions that they could not reach a unanimous verdict. On September 3, the jury foreperson sent the judge a note stating that eleven jurors had reached a decision -- not guilty by reason of insanity -- and characterizing the twelfth as unwilling to apply the reasonable-doubt standard as instructed. That characterization came from the foreperson, not from the holdout juror, and what the juror actually thought is not part of the public record. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington, who has publicly referred to the holdout only as male (the juror has not been otherwise identified), accused that juror of "refusing to listen to the law" and of "holding out for a guilty verdict," and argued to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in an emergency appeal, that the juror was biased "against those who suffer from debilitating mental illness," asking the court to order the trial judge to question or remove him. The SJC declined to intervene, and Judge Sullivan himself declined to single out the one juror over the other eleven, saying it was "not proper" to take one juror's side over the others' -- noting the court had no way to determine whether that juror had misunderstood the reasonable-doubt standard, or whether the other eleven had. A single juror refusing to join a unanimous verdict is not, on its own, evidence of misconduct: the requirement that a criminal jury be unanimous exists specifically so that one juror's unresolved doubt can stop a conviction (or, as here, an acquittal) that the other eleven were prepared to reach -- which is the same mechanism whether the holdout's doubt turns out to look right or wrong in hindsight.
After granting the defense a one-hour delay to seek that emergency appeal, Sullivan declared the mistrial shortly after 2 p.m. on September 4, thanking the jury for their "hard work and dedication."
What prosecutors said, and what happens next
District Attorney Cruz, addressing reporters after the mistrial, said: "This was and has always been about getting justice for those three little babies." The Plymouth County DA's office now has to decide whether to retry Clancy on the same charges, offer a plea agreement, or -- considered unlikely by the legal analysts covering the case -- drop the charges entirely. A status hearing is scheduled for September 29, 2026, where a new trial date could be set. Clancy remains held at Tewksbury State Hospital, a state psychiatric facility, while that decision is made.
Sourced and cross-checked against AP, CNN, NBC News, the Boston Globe, USA Today, the Guardian, and Jurist's legal commentary. Direct quotes are reproduced as reported by those outlets. Clancy has not been convicted of any charge; this case concerns a criminal-responsibility (insanity) defense, not a dispute over the underlying facts.