Judge Refuses to Remove Holdout Juror as Lindsay Clancy Murder Trial Remains Deadlocked

What Happened

On September 4, 2026, Judge William Sullivan presiding over the Lindsay Clancy trial in Plymouth County Superior Court denied a defense motion to remove a juror after attorney Kevin Reddington reported that the juror refused to follow the judge’s instructions on reasonable doubt. The request came after the jury forewoman sent a note indicating a holdout juror was not complying with the legal standard. Clancy, 36, faces three counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of her children Cora (5), Dawson (3), and Callan (8 months) at her Massachusetts home on January 24, 2023.

The jury, composed of nine women and three men, has deliberated for approximately 35 hours over six days without reaching a unanimous verdict. Judge Sullivan told the court, "I don't feel it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations," and ordered each juror to be questioned individually about their ability to follow the law. The defense argued the holdout juror was preventing a conviction, while the prosecution maintained the instructions were appropriate and deliberations should continue.

What the Evidence Establishes

The evidence shows that the jury remains deadlocked after six days of deliberations, with the holdout juror reportedly refusing to accept the court’s reasonable doubt instruction. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington stated in court that the holdout juror "refuses to listen to the law... on reasonable doubt" and requested the juror’s removal. Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague responded that the judge’s instructions were appropriate and that there is "no way to determine what the deliberations are, who's correct, who's incorrect, nor should we attempt to."

Judge Sullivan subsequently questioned each juror individually, reminding them that a guilty verdict requires unanimous belief beyond reasonable doubt. The defense noted that Clancy, who was paralyzed from the waist down after jumping from a second-floor window following the killings, was present in court in a wheelchair and consulted with her lawyer after the exchange. The trial has lasted nearly six weeks before deliberations began, and the jury has previously sent two notes indicating inability to reach unanimity.

Where the Accounts Conflict

The defense and prosecution offer conflicting interpretations of the holdout juror’s stance. Defense counsel Kevin Reddington characterizes the juror as blocking a conviction by refusing to follow the reasonable doubt standard, arguing that the juror’s removal is necessary to allow the panel to reach a verdict. In contrast, prosecutor Jennifer Sprague frames the situation as a normal deliberative process, asserting that the judge’s instructions are correct and that the jury should continue deliberating without intervention.

Additionally, social media posts from operative telegram feeds present a differing view: one feed claims the lone juror is "refusing to relent and acquit her," suggesting the holdout is preventing an acquittal, while another feed states that the defense lawyer has identified the holdout juror and anticipates a morning question from the judge. These posts imply the holdout may be leaning toward acquittal, directly contradicting the defense’s assertion that the juror is obstructing a conviction.

Context and Stakes

If the jury reaches a unanimous guilty verdict, Clancy faces a mandatory life sentence without parole under Massachusetts law for first-degree murder. Should the jury find her not guilty by reason of insanity or lack of criminal responsibility, she could be committed to a state psychiatric hospital for treatment. A mistrial would require prosecutors to decide whether to retry the case, accept a plea bargain, or dismiss the charges, a decision influenced by resource considerations and public interest.

The burden of proof rests with the prosecution, which must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—the highest standard in the U.S. legal system. The trial has drawn national attention due to the severity of the allegations, Clancy’s background as a former labor and delivery nurse, and the postpartum psychosis defense. The judge’s refusal to remove the juror underscores the court’s reluctance to appear to favor either side during deliberations.

What to Watch Next

Attention will focus on the court’s next session scheduled for Friday, September 6, 2026, at 09:00 EST (14:00 BST), when Judge Sullivan said the issue of the holdout juror would be addressed again. Observers will monitor whether the judge chooses to question the juror further, issue additional instructions, or ultimately declare a mistrial if deliberations remain deadlocked.

Should a mistrial be declared, prosecutors will need to announce within weeks whether they intend to retry Clancy, pursue a plea agreement, or drop the case. The defense may renew its motion to remove the juror or seek other remedies. Any change in the juror’s position or a unanimous verdict would immediately resolve the case and determine Clancy’s legal fate.

Bottom Line

Judicial refusal to remove the holdout juror leaves the Lindsay Clancy trial in a precarious deadlock, with the jury unable to agree on a verdict after six days of deliberations. The conflicting narratives from defense, prosecution, and social media illustrate the difficulty in ascertaining the holdout’s true position, while the legal stakes remain high: a potential life sentence, psychiatric commitment, or a retrial.

The immediate outcome hinges on whether the holdout juror will accede to the judge’s reasonable doubt instruction or whether the court will deem the panel hopelessly deadlocked and declare a mistrial. The next court session will be pivotal in determining the trial’s trajectory and the ultimate resolution of the case that has gripped public attention since 2023.