Lindsay Clancy And What A Mistrial Means
Two million Americans went to Google on Friday and typed the same question. What does a mistrial mean. They had just watched a six week murder trial in Massachusetts end without a verdict, and they did not know what they had seen. Today we go through what happened in a house in Duxbury and what that jury was actually asked to decide. We go through what a mistrial is, whether the state can bring the case again, and where it stands tonight. Then we go through why twelve people carried it for seven days and never arrived at an answer.
If this one is worth your time, follow the show or subscribe wherever you are listening.
Hey y'all, welcome back to Everyone Knows. I'm Brian Bullock of Starborne Studios. Speak up or step aside
let's go
On the night of January twenty fourth, twenty twenty three, in Duxbury, Massachusetts, a woman named Lindsay Clancy killed her three children. Cora was five years old. Dawson was three. Callan was eight months. She strangled them with exercise bands in the family home. Then she went upstairs and tried to take her own life by going out a second story window. She survived. She is paralyzed from the waist down and she has used a wheelchair ever since.
She was thirty three then. She is thirty six now. Before any of this she worked as a labor and delivery nurse, which means she spent her working life in a hospital helping other women bring babies into the world.
Her husband Patrick had been sent out of the house that evening to pick up food. He came home to what she had done.
Duxbury is a coastal town south of Boston, about sixteen thousand people. The kind of place where this is the only thing like it anybody can remember.
Here is the part most people never understood about this trial, and it is the reason the ending confused everybody.
Her lawyer never argued that she did not do it.
Not once. Kevin Reddington, her defense attorney, stood up in that courtroom and told the jury flat out that Lindsay Clancy killed those three children. There was no whodunit. No alternate suspect. No fight over forensics or timeline. The prosecution never had to prove she was the one, because the woman at the defense table had already conceded it through her own counsel.
The entire trial turned on a different question, and it is one most people have never had to think about. The question was whether the law can hold her responsible for it.
Those are two separate things, and American courts have treated them as separate for a very long time. Committing the act is one question. Being criminally responsible for the act is another. A person can absolutely have done the thing and still not be criminally responsible, if at the moment they did it they carried a mental illness severe enough that they could not appreciate what they were doing was wrong, or could not stop themselves from doing it.
That standard is deliberately narrow. Being ill is not enough. Being depressed is not enough. Being on medication is not enough. Having a terrible year is not enough. The illness has to be severe enough to remove the one thing our whole criminal system exists to punish, which is choosing.
Think about why that rule is there at all. We punish people because we believe they took one road when another was open to them. Take away the taking and the punishment stops making any sense. That is the entire theory, and every argument in this trial sat on top of it.
So the jury in Plymouth County was never asked to work out what happened inside that house. Nobody in that room disputed any of it. They were asked to look into a woman's mind on a night three years gone and decide whether there was still a person in there making decisions.
That is what they could not do.
It is worth being clear about what was riding on the answer, because the two possible outcomes could hardly sit further apart.
Massachusetts has no death penalty. What it has is a first degree murder statute carrying a mandatory sentence, and that sentence is life in prison with no possibility of parole. Not a range. Not a number the judge gets to weigh. A conviction on any one of those three counts and Lindsay Clancy dies inside a state prison.
The other road ends somewhere completely different. A finding of not criminally responsible is not a release and it does not put anybody back on a street. It moves the case out of the prison system and into the hospital system, where a person is held for treatment and kept as long as they are considered dangerous, with the question revisited by a court over time.
So that panel was not choosing between punishment and freedom. They were choosing between a prison cell forever and a locked ward indefinitely. Both of those are the rest of her life. They are administered by two different arms of the state, and the difference between them rests entirely on a judgment about whether she was in command of herself on one particular night.
It took a long time to even reach that point. The killings were in January of twenty twenty three and this trial did not begin until February of twenty twenty six. Three years. Some of that was psychological evaluation, since her mental state was the whole case and each side needed its own experts to examine her. Some of it was a fight over records, including a push by prosecutors to obtain medical files and even a reporter's interview notes. One start date got moved off December so the proceedings would not run into the holidays.
Reddington also asked the judge to split the trial in two, one phase to decide whether she committed the acts and a second to weigh her mental state on its own. He did not get it. Everything went to one jury at one time, which meant twelve people absorbed the details of three children dying and the clinical argument about her mind in the same six weeks.
This case pulled national attention for reasons beyond the horror of it. Part of it was who she was. A nurse who delivered babies for a living, in a comfortable town, with a husband and three kids, is not the picture most people carry of somebody who ends up charged with murder.
The larger part was what the defense put on trial alongside her. Reddington was not only arguing about her mind, he was arguing that the people treating it made it worse. That turned the proceeding into something doctors and clinicians around the country followed closely, because the argument in that room was partly an argument about them. Women who have survived this condition themselves have said publicly that the coverage has been hard to watch, and that they worry what the public absorbs will be about danger rather than about getting diagnosed.
The trial ran twenty one days of actual testimony. More than eighty witnesses took the stand, seventy four called by the prosecution and ten by the defense. More than three hundred exhibits went in front of the jury. Psychiatrists. Psychologists. The nurses and doctors who had treated her. Her own family. Police. A hospital chaplain who sat with her afterward.
The panel was nine women and three men.
They went out to deliberate and they stayed out. Seven days. Roughly thirty eight hours of talking.
On the first Tuesday they sent the judge a note saying they were stuck. He sent them back in. Wednesday, a second note saying the same thing. Judge William Sullivan then gave them a Tuey Rodriquez instruction, which I will break down in a few minutes, but the short version is that it is close to the last thing a judge does before letting a jury go.
By Thursday the defense had asked the court to remove one juror, arguing that person was not following the law as the judge had given it to them. Nobody was removed.
They went back in and they still could not get there.
On Friday the defense made a final emergency filing to the state's highest court. It held a hearing and denied the request. Judge Sullivan returned to the bench and declared a mistrial.
There is a status hearing set for September twenty ninth.
Now everyone knows.
Welcome Back.
Let me explain what actually happened when that judge said the word mistrial, because the word carries a lot of weight and almost nobody uses it correctly.
Start with how a criminal verdict works in this country.
A jury does not vote the way an election works. There is no majority rule. There is no eight to four, no eleven to one carries the day. In a criminal case all twelve jurors have to arrive at the same answer. Every one of them. If eleven are certain she should be convicted and one is not, there is no conviction. Turn it around and it works the same way. Eleven who want her found not criminally responsible, with a single holdout, produces nothing at all.
That requirement is not a technicality somebody is trying to fix. It is the design. The system would rather produce nothing than produce an outcome twelve ordinary people were not willing to put their names to.
When a jury tells the court it cannot get all twelve to the same place, that is a hung jury. Deadlocked means the same thing, and you heard both words all week.
When a jury hangs, the judge declares a mistrial. A mistrial means the trial did not finish. It stopped partway. It produced nothing.
So understand clearly what did not happen on Friday.
Lindsay Clancy was not acquitted. She was not found not guilty. She was not cleared of anything. She was also not found not criminally responsible, which is what her defense spent six weeks asking for. None of it happened, because a mistrial is the absence of a decision rather than a decision.
She is charged tonight with three counts of first degree murder, same as she was in twenty twenty three. She has been in state custody at Tewksbury State Hospital since shortly after the killings, and that is where she returned on Friday. Nothing about her circumstances changed except that the calendar got longer.
There is a side effect worth knowing about. Clancy has a separate civil lawsuit going against her own doctors and medical providers. While the criminal case sits unresolved, that suit is effectively frozen, because anything she says in a civil proceeding could be turned around and used against her in the criminal one. Lawyers who follow this expect it could sit in limbo a year or more.
Now, most people hear all of that and immediately ask the same thing. Can they really put her through this again? Is there not a rule against being tried twice?
There is. The Fifth Amendment says no person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy. Double jeopardy. It is one of the oldest protections in the document and the reason for it is obvious. If the government could keep retrying you until it finally got the answer it liked, a trial would mean nothing at all.
But that protection has an exception nearly as old, called manifest necessity. If a trial has to be stopped for a reason that is nobody's fault, the shield does not come down, and the case can be brought again.
A hung jury is the textbook example of manifest necessity. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has called it precisely that, the traditional example. The United States Supreme Court has said it about as plainly as a court says anything. Jeopardy does not end when a jury is discharged because it is unable to agree.
The logic is that you never actually received your trial. A trial is a process that concludes in a verdict. If it ends without one, the process did not complete, so nothing got resolved, so there is nothing to shield from being resolved a second time.
So yes. Plymouth County can bring this case again, and the Fifth Amendment is not standing in the way.
Let me go back to that instruction, because it explains why this dragged on as long as it did.
The Tuey Rodriquez charge comes out of a Massachusetts case from eighteen fifty one, modified by a second one in nineteen seventy three. Most other states use a version called the Allen charge, and plenty of lawyers call it the dynamite charge, because the point of it is to blast a stuck jury loose.
Here is what it does. When jurors report they cannot agree, the judge brings them back into the courtroom and tells them several things. That reaching a decision is desirable. That another trial would cost both sides a great deal in time and money and strain. That they should listen to one another with an open mind and seriously reexamine their own position in light of what their fellow jurors are saying.
Then he adds the sentence that keeps the instruction constitutional. No juror should ever surrender an honest conviction simply to go along with the group.
That final line is the whole ballgame, and it is why this panel hung anyway. The instruction pushes hard toward agreement and then flatly forbids the one shortcut that would guarantee it. A juror is told to try harder, and told in the same breath that if they still believe what they believe when they are done trying, they are supposed to stand there.
Somebody in that room stood there.
Something else people assume wrongly is that a note saying we are stuck forces the judge's hand. It does not. Whether a jury has deliberated long enough and thoroughly enough is left to the judge's own judgment, and Massachusetts courts have repeatedly backed judges who sent a panel back in after an early report of trouble. Judge Sullivan did exactly that, twice, before he finally let them go.
It is also worth thinking for a second about what that week was like for the twelve of them. These are not lawyers. They are people pulled off their jobs and out of their households, put in a room with eleven strangers, arguing about brain chemistry and drug interactions and what a woman was thinking on a winter night three years ago. They had photographs of three dead children in evidence. They had a woman in a wheelchair sitting twenty feet away every day for six weeks. They were also told that if they could not all agree, the whole thing would have been for nothing.
That is enormous pressure to simply go along with the room. Most people would fold under it.
One more piece of the mechanics is worth having. This was not a single charge. It was three separate counts, one for each child, with three separate verdict slips. That jury could legally have returned a decision on one child and hung on the other two. Unanimity was required on each count on its own.
They resolved none of them.
So what happens now.
There are three doors, and only three.
The first is a retrial. Plymouth County seats a brand new jury and runs the whole thing again. That means putting eighty witnesses back on a stand and walking three hundred exhibits in front of twelve strangers who have never seen any of it. It means Patrick Clancy and both families living through every day of it a second time. Prosecutors in a case with this profile ordinarily do retry. District Attorney Timothy Cruz spoke outside the courthouse afterward and said his office has always been about getting justice for those three children, and that this was not about a healthcare system.
Reddington was asked what a hung jury would mean for him. He answered in three words. Try it again. Asked whether he was actually willing to sit through another one, he said absolutely. He also said that if there is a second trial he would ask for the jury to be sequestered, and he called that request unusual himself, which tells you what he thinks the publicity has done to the pool of people who could sit on it.
The second door is a plea. Both sides sit down and agree on a resolution short of a full trial. It spares everybody the years, the cost, and the family the repetition. Whether that is realistic here, with three children dead and first degree murder charged, is a genuine open question and nobody has signaled it.
The third door is dismissal. The state simply drops the charges. Legal analysts consider that extremely unlikely on counts this serious, but it exists, and her team can also ask the court at the September hearing to enter a finding in her favor outright.
Massachusetts has two recent examples pointing in opposite directions, and both are worth knowing before anybody starts predicting.
Emmanuel Lopes went to trial in twenty twenty three on an insanity defense in a murder case. His jury hung after nearly two weeks. He was tried again in twenty twenty four and convicted of first and second degree murder.
Karen Read, in the same state, saw her first trial end in a hung jury. Her second trial, in June of twenty twenty five, ended in acquittal.
Same procedure, opposite endings. A second jury is not a replay. It is twelve completely different people hearing it cold, and there is no way to know in advance which way that cuts.
Now everyone knows.
Welcome Back.
The last thing to work through is why twelve reasonable adults, who sat through the same six weeks and heard the same eighty witnesses, could not land in the same place.
They were given two complete and opposite explanations of the same night.
Take the prosecution's version first.
Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague told the jury this was planned. Her argument was that Lindsay Clancy arranged to be alone in that house. She sent Patrick out on errands, and the timing of that was not coincidence, it was the setup. Once he was gone, prosecutors said, she acted intentionally, rationally and quickly.
They pushed back hard on the idea that she had been failed by the medical system. Sprague told jurors directly that this trial was not a public debate about women's mental health or how doctors treat women. Her point was that Clancy had better access to care than most Americans ever get. She saw psychiatrists. She went through an outpatient hospital program. She was admitted to McLean Hospital for five days of inpatient psychiatric treatment, and McLean is one of the most respected psychiatric hospitals in the country. That is not a picture of a woman nobody was trying to help.
Sprague also turned Clancy's own profession into evidence. A nurse knows the vocabulary. She knows what to tell a provider and she knows what follows when she tells them. Sprague argued Clancy moved between doctors and shaped what she disclosed because she wanted to get better on her own terms rather than anyone else's.
The state's expert, a forensic psychiatrist named Doctor Avram Mack, testified in rebuttal after the defense rested. He did not claim she was well. He agreed she was in a major depressive episode. But he told the jury he found no evidence of mania and nothing to support a bipolar diagnosis, and that mattered, because bipolar illness was one of the pillars holding up the defense.
There was also an exchange in that courtroom people are still arguing about. Under cross examination a defense expert acknowledged that Clancy never told the providers who asked her that she was having thoughts of harming her children. He explained that this is very common, because mothers fear their children will be taken from them if they say it out loud. Sprague came back with a question so sharp the judge struck it from the record. She asked whether it was better to kill them than to have them taken away.
That question got wiped from the transcript. The jury still heard it.
Now take the other side.
Kevin Reddington opened his closing argument by holding up two photographs. One was the Clancy family, all five of them, happy. The other was Lindsay Clancy in a hospital bed after she went out that window, badly broken.
His case was postpartum psychosis. That is a real and recognized condition, not a courtroom invention. It appears in roughly one to two births out of every thousand, which makes it uncommon but far from unheard of. For comparison, postpartum depression affects something like ten percent of mothers. Psychosis is a different animal. It can change what a person believes is real, and it can arrive fast, sometimes over a matter of days. Clinicians treat it as an emergency for exactly that reason.
Reddington told the jury she was hearing voices instructing her to kill her children and then herself. A forensic psychiatrist diagnosed her with postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder after the fact. A psychologist testified she was not criminally responsible. Family members testified about watching her come apart over months.
One of the leading researchers in this field, who had nothing to do with the trial, looked at what was public and described it as a classical presentation. Manic after delivery, not diagnosed, not treated, and made worse by medication.
That brings us to the drugs. Between the fall of twenty twenty two and that January, Clancy was prescribed roughly a dozen different psychiatric medications as her providers hunted for something that worked. Benzodiazepines. Trazodone. Zoloft. Valium. Seroquel. Remeron. Her psychiatric nurse testified that Clancy asked to change the plan nearly every day, reporting that the drugs were giving her intrusive thoughts, keeping her from sleeping, leaving her numb. Clancy wrote that starting new medications with side effects frightened her, and that she worried about becoming dependent on the benzodiazepines.
She also told a provider, in her own words, that she thought the problem was hers. That she kept reaching out to different people instead of sticking with the plan.
Reddington called the sheer volume of prescriptions horrific, and argued the treatment made her worse rather than better.
Then there is one piece of evidence that cuts both directions, and it is worth sitting with, because it is the hardest thing in the case.
Police testified about what was on her phone and her computer. There were searches about psychosis. Searches about hallucinations. Searches about ways to end her own life.
The defense reads that as a woman who knew something was badly wrong inside her head and was desperately trying to name it. The prosecution reads it as preparation.
Same evidence. Two entirely different stories built on top of it. That is this trial in miniature, and that is the position those twelve people were left in.
Here is what sits underneath all of it, and I think it is the honest answer to why nobody could agree.
The law demands a yes or a no. Was she criminally responsible. Pick one. That is what the verdict slip requires and there is no third box on it.
Psychiatry does not operate that way. It can tell you what conditions a person carries, what medications were in her body, what her symptoms looked like to the people around her, what she said and when she said it. What it cannot do is put a camera inside a person's head on a specific night three years in the past and show you whether there was still somebody in there choosing.
Two qualified experts examined the same woman and reached different conclusions. That does not mean one of them was lying. It means they reached the edge of what their field can say with confidence, and the edge came before the answer did.
So that jury was handed a question demanding a definite answer, and evidence incapable of producing one.
The stakes run both directions, which is what makes this genuinely hard rather than simply sad.
Get it wrong one way and you have excused the killing of three small children by calling it an illness. Get it wrong the other way and you have put a woman in prison until she dies over something she controlled no better than a seizure. Neither of those errors is small. Neither one gets fixed later.
Twelve people carried that for thirty eight hours across seven days. They were told to try again. They were told to reconsider. At least one of them, possibly several, would not move.
You can call that a failure if you want to. A fair amount of the coverage has.
I would call it the opposite.
That panel was told a decision was desirable. They were told a second trial costs everyone dearly. They were handed every push the law permits toward reaching an answer. Somebody in that room said no, I am not certain, and I will not pretend that I am so the rest of you can go home.
That is precisely what we ask jurors to do. We ask them not to convict unless they are sure. We tell them never to sign something they do not believe. When one of them actually holds that line, in a case carrying this much attention and this much pressure, that is not the machinery breaking down. That is the machinery doing the only thing it was built to do.
So here is where the three pieces of this leave us.
A woman killed her three children in Duxbury and nobody ever contested that she did it, which is why the trial you watched was never a search for what happened. It was a search for whether she had a choice.
The word that ended it means the trial stopped, not that it was decided. She is still charged, still held, and the state is free to run the whole thing again with a fresh twelve.
The reason it stopped is that the courtroom asked a question with two boxes on the slip, using a science that cannot fill either box with certainty about one night three years back.
Three children are dead. Nothing that happens in a courtroom changes that, and no verdict was ever going to.
But the question the state put to that jury is one of the hardest questions the law knows how to ask, and they gave back the only answer they honestly had, which was that they did not have one.
Now everyone knows.
AND THAT'S IT.
That is everyone knows. The hard truth, the stuff nobody else will say, and the thing that keeps you going.
I am Brian Bullock of starborn studios. Find me on X at Everyoneknows1. If this hits you share it with someone who needs to hear it. Subscribe. leave a review. Come find us at brianbullockwriter.com
Because everyone knows.
Your silence is your consent