Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Lindsay Clancy Judge Set to Declare Mistrial?. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired September 04, 2026 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[13:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:00:20]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Hi. I'm Boris Sanchez with Brianna Keilar in our nation's capital.

And we are following breaking news in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. Judge William Sullivan saying he intends to declare a mistrial, but giving the defense one hour to make an emergency appeal, this announcement coming shortly after the jury once again said it could not reach a unanimous verdict after deliberating for seven days.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: The Massachusetts mother is charged with murder for strangling her young children, three of them, three years ago. Her defense maintains that she was in the throes of postpartum psychosis and should not be held criminally responsible.

We're joined now by CNN anchor and chief legal analyst Laura Coates. We're also going to begin with CNN's Jean Casarez, who is outside of court there in Plymouth, Massachusetts.

Jean, what is the latest?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The latest is, the parties are in the courtroom right now, the assistant district attorneys that prosecuted this case. The district attorney, the elected district attorney of Plymouth county is, in the courtroom. And Kevin Reddington has been going in and out. He has a smile on his face, we understand.

He is talking with people in the hallway before he goes back in. But they have not allowed the media or the public that are lined up, let me tell you, long lines on that third floor of the courtroom, to be able to go into the courtroom yet.

So we're all just waiting, waiting to see what will happen next. And if Kevin Reddington will in fact get this emergency stay that he is requesting. He wants a stay or a stop, so the judge cannot declare a mistrial, even though a note from the jury today said: "With a heavy heart, we have to tell you that we cannot reach a unanimous decision, and we will not be able to do so."

SANCHEZ: Jean, please stand by.

Laura, what exactly would A stay give the defense a chance to do?

LAURA COATES, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, there were prior notes that seemed to suggest that their holdout juror is actually leaning in favor or in favor of a conviction, as opposed to other jurors.

However, what they're trying to do here is just buy time. This defense needs to pull out all the stops. They know how emotionally charged and polarizing this case has been.

But they also know they have given the jurors five different options, five different options from first-degree murder all the way down to not guilty, when they began with having not guilty by reason of not being criminally responsible, a fancier way of saying not guilty by reason of insanity, or the idea of guilty because it was intentional activity.

And so they expanded that original two options to five, and now they now have at least a holdout who the defense, I think, is hoping the longer they're back there deliberating, there's a chance you could turn the mind of another person. You almost envision that famous Norman Rockwell painting of one holdout juror who has their arms crossed at the end of the table and everyone's leaning on them.

But every juror has every right to come to their individual conclusion. And you want unanimity, not conformity that is forced. And so whatever this juror decides, along with the other 11 who remain in deliberations, who say they now are hopelessly deadlocked, that's part of our due process system.

But the defense is hoping to avoid the possibility of a mistrial. You know why, guys? Because that could mean the prosecution could retry this woman, Lindsay Clancy, without fear of having double jeopardy attached.

KEILAR: Well, let's talk about that.

And I have a question. Admittedly, it has a lot of ifs, but I think they're important, Laura, which is that if a mistrial is declared here, right, if this stay is not successful, if a mistrial is declared, if the prosecution does decide to retry this, and if that 11-1 is as the defense says it is, where they're portraying it as you have 11 people who are kind of coming down on the side of Lindsay Clancy, and there's one holdout who is not.

I know the prosecution has taken kind of issues with how that has been portrayed in court by the defense. But if that's the case, I mean, absent all of this public attention on the case, would you normally expect a prosecutor to retry a case if that were the breakdown?

COATES: Yes, if that were the breakdown. And, again, they take issue with it. So it may not be the case, right? We know another famous case in Massachusetts, Karen Read, a very separate set of facts. They did have a mistrial and then a retrial, and there was a not guilty decision in the end.

So it's always a huge risk. But I believe that they think that they have a solid enough case, if not to bring a full trial, at least to massage a plea negotiation that would result in the favorable terms, at least to the jurisdiction, if not Lindsay Clancy.

[13:05:13]

Now, I say that because there's a tremendous amount of expense and toll that it takes to have a trial such as this. There was already concerns about the finances and being able to care for her in trial with the number of nurses she requested.

Remember, she's been saying in Tewksbury, Massachusetts, instead of a hospital. She is paralyzed from the waist down after trying to jump out of a window following the strangulation of her children. She does require 24-hour care, based on her condition.

And so the jurisdiction already expressed the inability to meet all of those needs and had a bit of a compromise in terms of the court. So you have that weighing against them, and you have got the voir dire process that would take place all over again.

Now, if you thought you had a hard time finding unopinionated jurors who had no opinion whatsoever in this case before this became high- profile, good luck now. That's not to say you cannot, because there are a number of high-profile cases over the years where people certainly have an opinion, but can they follow the jury instructions or the judge instructions?

If they can, they will stay there. Another thing they could also do is drop the charges. That's not happening, given the fact that she did admit to the strangulation. The issue is whether she feels that she was criminally responsible based on what her defense says was a postpartum psychosis and a failing health care system that ignored her pleas for help.

But the prosecution, their story has been the same. They believe it was intentional, that she was manipulative and in her right mind.

SANCHEZ: Laura, please stand by.

Let's go back to Jean Casarez outside of the courtroom.

Jean, you have just gotten some new information.

CASAREZ: Yes, CNN has been able to confirm with the clerk's office of the Supreme Judicial Court that Kevin Reddington has indeed filed. There is a filing that is being processed right now at the highest court of Massachusetts.

We don't know exactly what is included in that filing. This obviously is not the granting of a stay, as what he announced in court that he wanted. But CNN has confirmed that Kevin Reddington has filed papers with the Supreme Judicial Court, is being processed right now, the filing of those papers. KEILAR: And how much of a long shot is that, Jean?

CASAREZ: It's a very good question, because it will be one judge, according to Kevin Reddington in court, that will look at it and grant the stay. And a stay is just a stay. A stay is not a final decision. It's just a pause. It's a hold.

But what could happen is that the presiding judge, Judge Sullivan, will not be able to rule on a mistrial today. And so that means the jury has to go home for the next three days, holiday weekend, still as a deliberating juror in this case.

And then the court, the highest court, would rule. But the filing alone does not mean the court will accept the filing. He has made the filing, the first step.

SANCHEZ: All right, Jean Casarez, thank you so much.

Let's go back to Laura Coates.

Laura, amid all of this, it seems highly unlikely that at this point the defense would be open to some sort of plea deal with the prosecution.

COATES: Well, they don't want the first-degree murder charge. I will tell you that. They don't want the result in any of the charges. They have five to choose from, whether it's first-degree murder, second- degree murder, manslaughter, not guilty, or guilty but not -- or not guilty entirely, or guilty but not criminally responsible.

They don't want any of these options, because most of them result in life behind bars. Now, there are options that are included among them, 20 years for the manslaughter, I believe, as a maximum can be revisited, or also commitment into where she is already at a facility to treat mental health concerns.

But they ultimately, as the defense team, they want to have the most options for freedom as possible for her, including not guilty, which would mean that she could leave if found not guilty and not -- no longer be incarcerated. She's been held for several years now.

One of the things that's interesting about this is, Reddington, the defense attorney, who is really fighting, fighting, fighting, trying to make sure his client has all the options available to him, as he should. Everyone deserves a vigorous defense who's presumed innocent.

But he also asked the judge to try to give a kind of a survey of these jurors and poll them and say, OK, hold on, tell me what you're looking at right now. Are you leaning against first degree or second degree, manslaughter? Talk to me about what you're thinking here?

That's a very odd thing to ask when there's not been a final verdict in a case. And the reason you don't ask that is because sometimes it can create undue pressure. Other times, of course, it could mean that, if there is a mistrial declared, the prosecution does not have the ability to go to a fresh jury and have the option to retry a case without people believing, well, they couldn't find them guilty the first time on these charges.

[13:10:11]

It hampers that prosecution. But he wants them to find at least some decision on the highest of charges and give a final verdict on the highest charges, because then you will have a final decision. Double jeopardy attaches. You cannot retry them on certain crimes if they have been fully adjudicated on a particular issue.

So, his goal is to delay that mistrial decision long enough to have those jurors decide on some of the charges and not others to give his client a fighting chance. Now, whether you agree with that decision or not, it's about his strategy as defense team and certainly the prosecution. They want all or nothing.

SANCHEZ: Laura Coates, thank you so much for breaking that down for us.

We're going to keep monitoring the latest from Plymouth, where soon the judge could decide what happens next in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial.

If you have a question about the case, you should e-mail it to CNNAllAccess-questions@CNN.com. CNN's experts are taking on your questions and comments right now at CNN All Access.

Stay with us. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:15:42]

KEILAR: You're looking at live pictures outside of the courthouse in Plymouth, Massachusetts, as we're at a critical point in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial.

Obviously, there is so much attention there. You can see the media just amassed, as we're waiting to see if we hear anything ultimately from one of the attorneys. We're standing by right now to see what's going to happen next, the judge saying he was ready to declare a mistrial, but he's giving the defense team some time to make this emergency appeal.

SANCHEZ: With us now is Robert Bianchi, a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor. Also with us, jury consultant Alan Tuerkheimer.

Robert, walk us through the strategy here from the defense, what they're hoping to do if a stay is granted. How also could it fit into any legal arguments over double jeopardy?

ROBERT BIANCHI, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So the defense is doing something, and this case is a complete flip-flop. I'm thinking of Mr. Reddington as a defense lawyer where it's 11-1, where the state looks like it's winning its case.

He'd be screaming bloody murder right now not to take the mistrial, because we always say, you want to try the case to one juror that hangs the jury. But, here, because of the wobbly instruction that came out, Mr. Reddington is saying that the judge should do further inquiry into the jury.

And so your audience understands, there is a sacrosanct principle in the law that the jury is not to be influenced at all by any party, and that the deliberations are not to be -- quote, unquote -- 'invaded."

So Kevin Reddington is saying the judge should have done more during the voir dire to ask what the issue was and essentially get into what their deliberations are, the judge here saying he wouldn't do it. You're going up on appeal for a stay. He's hoping to get some time, buy some time, and maybe over the holiday weekend that juror comes back and changes their decision, and maybe they get a verdict.

Clearly, Mr. Reddington feels the jury's 11 in his favor, and that the government is on the precipice of a loss. But this is something, in 37 years as a homicide prosecutor and a person who's done criminal defense work in homicide cases, I have seen hung juries, but I have never seen anything like this. It's extraordinary.

KEILAR: Well, let's talk about that, Alan, because I think informed experts can speculate about what is happening in deliberations, but we don't fully know.

And we're sort of hearing from the attorneys in the court about that. What did you think about that moment yesterday when Lindsay Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, said -- after the jury had left the room, notably, he said the court has an instruction from the foreperson of that jury that's been working for a week now saying that there's one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you have given him or her unreasonable doubt.

The prosecutor countered that there was no way to determine how the deliberations were unfolding, and noted that the judge had asked each juror individually if they are able to follow the law earlier in the day.

I mean, what did you make of that and how do you read that as to what is actually happening in deliberations?

ALAN TUERKHEIMER, JURY CONSULTANT: The judge was correct.

The judge can't immerse himself in the deliberation. All he can do is what he did, and that's just poll each juror one by one, asking if they're deliberating in good faith and following the law. And they are. They said they were. It's hard -- you have to be hard-pressed to think that a juror is going to tell a judge in that scenario, you know what, Judge, you know what, I'm not following your instructions. I'm not going to follow the law.

So there's no real surprise there. And he just had to follow what he was doing. Inside the jury room, it's tense. It's really frustrating. They have been going on for so long now, 30, what, six hours. And so it's hard to believe that this legal burden issue came up a while ago. They have just been trying so hard to be unanimous. They have tried to

bring others to their -- the camp, the majority camp. And so at this point, now it just seems like -- out of frustration, it does seem like some of the jurors felt like this one particular juror is not following the law.

Now, again, in the deliberation, did this juror say out loud to 11 other jurors, yes, I think that the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt, there's doubt, but you know what, I just -- I can't send this case back, and she killed her kids, so even though there is doubt, I'm going to convict?

I don't think that happened either. It's just, after such a tense deliberation, there's so much going on, they're getting frustrated, and I think they're mostly frustrated with this one juror, because this one juror is holding firm and not relenting.

[13:20:12]

SANCHEZ: So, Alan, what do you make of what Robert described the defensive strategy as trying to send them back, give them more time, see if that juror potentially changes their mind over the weekend?

In your experience with juries, is that something that's even likely to happen?

TUERKHEIMER: I think it would have happened by now, at least before the other time, when the -- after they went and talked to each juror about whether they're following the law.

But he's doing everything you can. He's an ardent defender of his client, Lindsay Clancy. I agree with what he's doing and what he's trying to do. One of the things he said that didn't make much sense, he did say that you should just replace the juror. Well, you can't do that. You don't just -- think of a system if there was a juror that disagreed with you, and you could just say, all right, let's remove this juror.

And even if you could, I believe the alternates left, but even if you had alternates, you couldn't just take an alternate and fill in a spot to make it 12. You would have to start deliberating all over again. And, clearly, that's not going to happen.

So I think he's doing everything you can. He's zealously defending his client and doing what he can to buy a little time and try to have more of a favorable scenario moving forward.

KEILAR: So, Robert, if we do see a mistrial declared here, and we hear publicly from the jurors, what do you want to know?

BIANCHI: I really don't think I need to know anything. I mean, personally, as the person who ran a prosecutor's office and had to make decisions on NGI cases -- we call them not guilty by reason of insanity in Jersey -- there, it's lack of criminal responsibility.

I think many of us who do this work day in and day out, and I know it's very controversial, see an individual who was on 13 different kinds of medications, multiple treatments, auditory hallucinations, turned down by institutions, a diary that's showing her getting darker and darker and darker, most, I think, prosecutors would have seen that this is an NGI from the beginning and probably would have resolved the case that way.

So I have been very critical. Usually, on NGI cases, you got to remember, it's not that they can't reason. Everyone who we have ever seen that's done something crazy has the ability to get to a place with a weapon, execute a plan, and kill somebody. That's not the equation here.

But, to me, from the cases that I have seen in my whole career, 37 years, if there was a case that screamed out by not guilty by reason of insanity or lack of criminal responsibility, it'd be this one.

Last point. As the prosecutor, when I was given that job by the governor in New Jersey -- we're appointed -- we are given the biggest tool in the prosecutor's toolbox, which is discretion. And just because you can doesn't mean you should. And what I mean by that is just because you can prosecute, just because you technically can win a case doesn't mean you should prosecute it.

Right now, we have a family that does not want to see this case prosecuted, the father of the children that doesn't want to see the case prosecuted, a mother-in-law, and we have now 11 jurors who listened to far more than we listen to who think that this case should not at least be guilty on the top charges, maybe criminal responsibility.

Let's get this woman in a mental institution, locked down. They stay there for a significant period of time. It's not a get-out-of-jail- free card. This is the perfect case. And maybe, if the prosecutor will relent a little bit on the ego here and not just go -- you have got to take into consideration, 11 jurors, if it's right, said that your case was not fitting.

Do the right thing and work this case out and bring closure to this matter. And that, in my opinion, is what should happen here.

KEILAR: Robert Bianchi, Alan Tuerkheimer, stand by for us, if you could, because we're keeping a close eye here on the scenes outside of the court there in Plymouth, Massachusetts. You can see the media is amassed, as we are waiting for a decision on the Lindsay Clancy murder trial.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:28:28]

SANCHEZ: We're keeping a close eye on this courtroom in Plymouth, Massachusetts, as the Lindsay Clancy murder trial continues, and her defense attorney has filed an emergency appeal in the case.

KEILAR: Yes, the arguments have turned on whether or not Clancy should be held criminally responsible for killing her three children. The defense says she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.

Let's talk about this issue with Dr. Sheila Shanmugan. She's a reproductive psychiatrist at Penn Medicine.

Dr. Shanmugan, thanks for being with us.

As you're well aware, the prosecution's argument here was that, because Clancy was able to keep up with her normal routine on the day of the killings and because the killings were methodical, she was not in a state of psychosis, because there was some planning involved too. She sent her husband out for errands while she did this.

Is that, in your experience in treating and researching postpartum psychosis, something that patients -- the kind of planning that patients are incapable of doing?

DR. SHEILA SHANMUGAN, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA PERELMAN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: Not at all.

So, as you said, we have the defense saying that Lindsay Clancy has postpartum psychosis, and the prosecution is saying, because she planned, she can't have postpartum psychosis. And that makes it sound like these two things are in conflict, and that they can't coexist with one another.

And, clinically, that's just not what we see. You can have both planning while you have postpartum psychosis. And I think what really makes this clear is trying to see what it's like from the perspective of someone who's experiencing postpartum psychosis.

And I had a patient who, once she had recovered, told me about what postpartum psychosis was like for her. And she just -- this really stuck with me and made it really clear how these two could be -- could coexist together.