The Lindsay Clancy Trial Mini Series: The Verdict

After more than three weeks of emotional and harrowing testimony, the jury in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial was handed the difficult task of deciding her fate. With five possible outcomes on the table ranging from first-degree murder to not guilty by reason of insanity, the nine women and three men entered deliberations. What followed was a tense seven days. In this final episode of our mini-series (for now), we walk you through the dramatic conclusion of the trial. Despite repeated encouragement from Judge William F. Sullivan, the jury remained hopelessly deadlocked, with reports of a single holdout juror refusing to follow guidance on reasonable doubt. Following heated exchanges between defence attorney Kevin Reddington, prosecutors, and the judge, a mistrial was officially declared. LINKS If any of the contents in this episode have caused distress, know that there is help available via Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636. Contact Full Stop Australia https://fullstop.org.au/ on 1800 385 578, 7 days, 24 hours. GET IN TOUCH Follow us on Instagram and TikTok @truecrimeconversations https://www.instagram.com/truecrimeconversations/?hl=en Want us to cover a case on the podcast? Email us at [email protected] mailto:[email protected] or send us a voice note. https://help.mamamia.com.au/en-US/send-a-podcast-voice-note-467960 Make sure to leave us a rating and review on Apple & Spotify to let us know how you're liking the episodes. CREDITS Host & Executive Producer: Gemma Bath Producer: Ella Maitland Video Editor: Julian Rosario Mamamia acknowledges the traditional owners of the land on which we have recorded this podcast. Become a Mamamia subscriber: https://www.mamamia.com.au/subscribe https://www.mamamia.com.au/subscribe See omnystudio.com/listener https://omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Gemma Bath?

  Hi, I'm Gemma Bath, host of True Crime Conversations, and welcome to our mini-series, Unpacking the Trial of Lindsay Clancy in Massachusetts, the case the entire world can't take their eyes off. In our last episode, we took you through the defence's case. In this episode, we are discussing the verdict, or lack thereof. At the conclusion of the closing arguments, the jurors entered into deliberations. In this instance, the jury was made up of nine women and three men, and they had five different outcomes to consider. The first would be a not guilty ruling. However, this was always highly unlikely, as the defence did not deny the fact that Lindsay killed five-year-old Cora,

• 0:43Gemma Bath?

  three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callan in January 2023. The second was a not guilty by reason of insanity ruling, which the defence argued for, giving evidence to show their case that Lindsay was in the grips of postpartum psychosis and couldn't be held responsible for her actions. For this ruling, the prosecution would have had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy was criminally responsible for killing the children. The third option was first-degree murder, which carries the harshest penalty in Massachusetts, with a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. The fourth option, second-degree murder. This differentiates from first-degree murder

• 1:27Gemma Bath?

  as it applies to crimes where there was unlawful killings done in malice or recklessness, but without pre-planning. For this, the jury might not be convinced that Clancy had planned out the killings, but that she saw an opportunity to commit them at the time. This also carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison, but with a chance of parole. The fifth and final ruling the jury could have reached was manslaughter. For this, they would have had to come to the conclusion that Clancy had unintentionally killed the kids by reckless conduct. This carries a maximum sentence of 20 years, which applies per count. If the jury couldn't reach a unanimous decision,

• 2:09Gemma Bath?

  it results in a mistrial, a decision no one involved wanted. After four days of deliberating on Tuesday, September 1, 2026, the jury expressed that they were in a deadlock. They could not come to a unanimous decision, they said. Judge William F. Sullivan told the jury:

• 2:28Speaker 01

  After many hours of deliberation, we are unable to come to a unanimous decision. I brought you back out because I know that this was a long trial, all right? I know there are over 80 witnesses, there are over 300 exhibits. But because of that, I'm going to ask you to go back out, keeping in mind all the instructions that I gave you, to go out and to continue your deliberations at this time, all right? And so with that, I'm going to ask you to go back out. Like I said, keep in mind the instructions I gave you, reviewing the evidence, and I'd ask you to resume your deliberations at this time. Okay? Thank you.

• 3:13Gemma Bath?

  By the conclusion of a fifth day of deliberations, they had still not come to a verdict. They went to the judge again, and he issued a special instruction to encourage further deliberation. The official term for this is called the "Allen Charge", or in Massachusetts, it's referred to as the "Touey-Redriguez Charge". In layman's terms, it's just an official word of encouragement to reach a verdict, but it's usually the step before declaring a mistrial.

• 3:41Speaker 01

  I'm going to give you another instruction, all right? And it's this. Our constitution and laws provide that in a criminal case, the principal way for deciding questions of fact is by the verdict of a jury. In most cases, perhaps strictly speaking in all cases, absolute certainty cannot be attained, nor is it expected. The verdict to which a juror agrees must be their own, the result of their own convictions, and not a mere acquiescence in the conclusions of their fellow jurors. Yet, in order to bring 12 minds to a unanimous result, you must examine the questions submitted to you

• 4:23Speaker 01

  with candor and with proper regard and deference and respect to the opinions of each other. You should consider that it is desirable that the case be decided. In the present case, a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the Commonwealth to establish every element of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt. If you are left in doubt at this time, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and must be acquitted. However, in conferring together, you ought to pay proper respect to each other's opinions and listen with an open mind to each other's arguments.

• 5:03Speaker 01

  With that, I now ask you to return to your deliberations with these thoughts in mind. Thank you.

• 5:09Gemma Bath?

  Lindsay Clancy's lawyer, Kevin Reddington, had this to say outside court.

• 5:14Speaker 02

  The fact that they have not said that they're done is very, very heartening. Obviously, they're working very hard. That's what I keep saying. They're obviously working very hard.

• 5:24Speaker 03

  Any idea what's happening in that jury room?

• 5:27Speaker 02

  No.

• 5:28Speaker 03

  What's top of mind for you at the end of the day today? It's been 24 hours of deliberations. What are you thinking about?

• 5:36Speaker 02

  Just, um, nothing.

• 5:38Speaker 04

  Kevin, are you encouraged by the fact that they, you know, this morning, they said that they couldn't reach a unanimous verdict? That they're back at it? They want to come tomorrow?

• 5:48Speaker 02

  They kept at it, yeah. It's obviously very encouraging. I think that they're showing that they're more than willing to keep working at it.

• 5:55Gemma Bath?

  On the sixth day, the jury came back deadlocked a third time. But they also had something else to say. In their note to the judge, the panel indicated that one juror was not following guidance on reasonable doubt. The jury was then individually sworn in again, and the judge asked them one by one if they could follow the instructions of the law. On the seventh day, the defence tried to get that sole juror removed to spare the proceedings from moving to a mistrial. According to Reddington, this lone juror was holding out on a unanimous verdict. By the way, we don't officially know the exact split among the jury or the verdict that the majority might have reached.

• 6:38Speaker 01

  If a jury consists of people and there's one person who is refusing to actually apply the law to the facts as determined for reasons that are not arising out of the case but are personal to the juror's position regarding their review of their oath and how they should apply their oath. In other words, if it's personal to this individual, which I believe it is, based on the first question that you had. And I have never seen a situation like this where a foreperson on the jury is so courageous

• 7:22Speaker 01

  as to speak on behalf of 11 jurors and indicate that juror number, which I will not mention, and I quote, "has made statements acknowledging doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states." Clearly, Judge, we have a person who, under their oath, stood in front of you yesterday when you did the individual voir dire, and according to this information, under oath, looked you in the eye and lied.

• 8:01Gemma Bath?

  Reddington's discussions with the judge got quite heated after Judge Sullivan said he saw no reason to do a further inquiry with the juror in question.

• 8:10Speaker 01

  I would ask that you not just give them, as I described it yesterday, a soft inquiry. Will you listen to my instructions? I would ask that you specifically direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and re-instruct them on that forcefully. I think I did that yesterday, didn't I?

• 8:28Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 8:29Speaker 01

  You did it yesterday. You did it soft. You didn't do it forcefully, and I'm asking you to do it forcefully. What do you want me to do? I want you to tell them. Get a brass band? I read the instruction as written by the SJC. The fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that. I'm not an actor. I've just given the instructions. Well, my point, Judge, simply, is that you're kind of glossing over the issue. The issue is, this juror will not, according to that note, apply the law of reasonable doubt. And that's why I've requested, you know what I've requested, so I know my objection. But just in case the record is clear,

• 9:11Speaker 01

  I am specifically not glossing over this issue. I have thought about this issue long and hard. I know the defendant objects, but the characterization that I'm glossing over it, trust me, that's not the situation.

• 9:27Gemma Bath?

  The prosecution disagreed that the juror should be dismissed.

• 9:30Speaker 05

  We have the note from the jury. There's no way to determine what the deliberations are, who's correct, who's incorrect, nor should we attempt to, because that's part of deliberations. I think what Your Honour has done by asking each juror if they're able to follow the law and then giving a general instruction on reasonable doubt is appropriate under Commonwealth versus Ralph, so we do not have an objection to the questions or the re-instruction.

• 9:56Gemma Bath?

  After several more hours of deliberation, in which the jury asked to see the knife and the bags of pill bottles again, the jury once again indicated that they were still deadlocked. Judge Sullivan said he intended to declare a mistrial, but first granted the defence one hour to file an emergency appeal. In that, Reddington asked the Massachusetts Supreme Court to order the trial court to further question the holdout juror or remove them. The request was denied. Judge Sullivan then went ahead with calling a mistrial.

• 10:29Speaker 01

  I'm going to declare that the jury is deadlocked, and I'm going to declare a mistrial, all right? I just wanted to make a comment.

• 10:41Speaker 01

  And it, I'm kind of a history buff. And during World War II, Winston Churchill was the Prime Minister for England, when England pretty much stood against Nazi Germany alone. And so Churchill oftentimes had to talk to the citizens and say, "Let us brace for our duties." I always liked that phrase. And I thought of that phrase when all of you were agreeing to be on this jury. You agreed to brace for that duty. And each one of you knew how long the case was going to go. You knew how difficult the case was going to be to listen to, facts-wise.

• 11:26Speaker 01

  But still, you braced for that duty. And I just kind of wanted to also let you know, I watched every day, day after day, week after week, all of you performing that duty that you braced for. And I just kind of wanted to let you know, I understood how hard everybody worked in this case. I understood that you all gave everything you could, and probably more than you thought you could. And so, on behalf of myself, I just want to thank you so much. You should be proud for what you did. You braced for that duty. You performed that duty. And I just kind of wanted to thank you, on behalf of myself, and behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

• 12:11Speaker 01

  Thank you so much.

• 12:13Gemma Bath?

  So what happens next is the biggest question on everyone's lips. Prosecutors now have to decide whether to try again with a new jury, which means a whole new trial. And yes, every witness needs to be recalled. If you remember, the prosecution had close to 70. Prosecutors do have other options. They could offer Lindsay Clancy a plea deal. Or thirdly, the district attorney's office could decide not to retry the case, particularly if they think the same result might occur. So what does all of this mean for Lindsay? Just because a mistrial has been called, she isn't a free woman. She remains in a mental health facility, held under the same murder charges while a decision is made on next steps.

• 12:57Gemma Bath?

  A status hearing has been set for September 29. So that's the next update we'll receive in Lindsay's case. Here's Reddington outside court.

• 13:05Speaker 02

  You said you were ready to retry this on Monday. Do you still feel like you could turn this around that quickly? Yeah, absolutely. Can you feel there is something you would do differently with the second trial? Why would I? I won the case.

• 13:17Speaker 02

  Let's say there's a first trial. Let's say they change things up. How are you going to deal with that? How are they going to change things up? I mean, they're going to come in, they're going to have the same witnesses. I can change that quicker.

• 13:32Gemma Bath?

  Here's the DA, Timothy Cruz.

• 13:34Speaker 06

  But in the end, I understand that this has been an emotional trial for everybody. It's emotional for the Duxbury community. It's even emotional for you members of the media. But in the end, I bring it all back to the child victims in this case. Cora, Dawson, and Callan. This was, and has always been, about getting justice for those three little babies.

• 14:02Gemma Bath?

  Lindsay's ex-husband Patrick released a statement about an hour after the mistrial was called. It thanked the jurors for their commitment and their perseverance. He said the prospect of reliving the tragedy through another trial was extraordinarily painful. Reddington had this to say when asked how Lindsay was doing.

• 14:20Speaker 02

  How is Lindsay?

• 14:27Speaker 02

  Not good.

• 14:30Speaker 02

  Not good.

• 14:31Gemma Bath?

  But with the prospect of a new trial looming, he said this.

• 14:35Speaker 02

  So Judge Sullivan is indicating that we're looking at some time in the fall. And she'll be ready.

• 14:41Gemma Bath?

  So now, we're back to the start. The case is in the same spot as it was pre-trial. Except this time, picking an impartial jury is going to be much trickier, given the way this case has captured global attention. Thanks for listening to True Crime Conversations. When we get updates in this case, we'll release more episodes of our Lindsay Clancy mini-series. But for now, thanks for being here. We'd love your feedback on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. We'll be back on Thursday with our regular episode.

• 15:26Gemma Bath?

  You know the drill. You pick the couch, pay the deposit, then wait 12 weeks praying it matches the living room. Let's skip that. Mamma Mia is giving one lucky subscriber a $5,000 voucher for B2C furniture to spend on pieces that are in stock and ready to ship right now. High-end style, zero wait. To enter, head to mamamia.com.au/subscribe. You'll unlock all our subscriber-only podcasts, articles, and our fitness app, Move. Already subscribed? You're already in the running. Offer ends October 31st. T's and C's apply.