Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Lindsay Clancy's Triple-Murder Trial Ends In A Mistrial After Jury Deadlocks. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired September 04, 2026 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:38]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": We are following Breaking News in the Lindsay Clancy trial. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court just holding a hearing in response to an emergency appeal by Clancy's defense after the judge overseeing the case said he intends to declare a mistrial due to a hung jury. The nine women and three men telling the court they were deadlocked again and that they can't reach a unanimous verdict.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": They had deliberated for about 37 hours over seven days, and one of their notes to the court indicated they were split 11-1 toward acquittal. We have attorney, Areva Martin to discuss this case and retired New York State Supreme Court Judge, Diane Kiesel. But first, let's go to CNN's Jean Casarez, who's getting fresh updates on this.

So, Jean, we checked in just a few moments ago that this emergency hearing had ended.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right. And it took place, and that is significant in and of itself. And the judge that was -- the one judge of the Supreme Judicial Court that was presiding over this made some comments. She did say that she needs to get to work now and make a decision. But it's interesting her language that she used at the end of this. She said, I think I understand your argument, and that's to the defense. She said, although it was quick papers, it was good papers. And I understand the distinction that you're making. I now have to make a decision.

So she was very positive in those words that could be looked at as subjective words in regard to what the defense is asking for here. And the defense is asking for a stay, for a stop, for a mistrial to not be declared, so that as this holiday weekend takes place, there will still be a deliberating jury that would potentially have to come back to the courthouse on Monday and keep going. We have to see what form or fashion this ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court takes, because if there is a stay, that doesn't mean the defense has won.

That means the defense is won for a moment here, and the mistrial conceivably cannot be declared. But it really takes these deliberating jurors to a point where they cannot talk about the case. They cannot look at anything, read anything, and they have to think that the deliberation may continue.

KEILAR: And we're also joined by Diane Kiesel. I'm curious, judge, what you think about that. It sort of sounds like a little bit of shop talk. Maybe you can break it down for us. Although it was quick papers, it was good papers. I think from the outside, that kind of sounds like a judge saying, you know, you make a case that is good enough that I really -- I do have to consider it. I wonder what you think as a former judge.

DIANE KIESEL, NY STATES SUPREME COURT JUDGE (RET.): Good afternoon. As a former judge, I think we run a great risk trying to read the tea leaves based on what a judge says from the bench. While these probably are excellent papers, and the judge wants to make sure that the lawyers know they've given it their best shot, doesn't necessarily mean she's going to side with whoever filed these "excellent papers."

I think it's a tough road to hoe here. You've got a jury that's been out, what, six days, and a trial that's been on for six weeks. The judge has read multiple, what we in New York call Allen charges, in other words, go back in there, jury, and deliberate. And they've indicated they simply can't reach a verdict.

SANCHEZ: Areva, what are you watching for out of the state Supreme Court?

AREVA MARTIN, ATTORNEY: Exactly that. What is this court going to do? And what would a state actually get either side, seven days of deliberation, 37 hours, one juror saying that I am following the instructions of the judge, I do understand the instruction around reasonable doubt, but I have a difference of opinion.

I'm wondering at what point this becomes duress, becomes coercion of this one juror. That juror has an absolute right to interpret the evidence differently than the other 11 do. And so I'm not sure what we gain by having the jurors go home for the weekend, come back on Monday or Tuesday to start all over again.

[14:05:00]

What else can this judge say to these jurors that will cause them to get to a different result? So I'm not sure we gained very much, even if there is a state granted per the request of the defense.

KEILAR: And Judge Kiesel, just can you put into context how, I guess, unusual this is for lay people to understand, right? We are at this point in the trial, it coming kind of to this very dramatic climax yesterday, and then today, the defense attorney pursuing this stay. I mean, how are you seeing all of this?

KIESEL: It's extraordinary. I sat on the bench for almost 25 years. This is -- I never had this experience and I know of no other colleague, who I worked with in New York, who had it. I mean, you've got, as Ms. Martin just said, and she's right, you know, you've got a juror who says, look, I'm following the law, but I don't see the law the way the 11 of you do. And that juror does have a right to express his or her opinion and hold out. And how many times are you going to go back to these jurors and say, keep trying, keep trying, when you've heard multiple times, they simply cannot get there. So I agree. It's extraordinary. And I don't know what it gets you.

Let's assume they do win, as the attorney just said, then what happens on Monday? Same thing, I would suggest.

SANCHEZ: Yeah, I do want to share a note we just got with our viewers about something that one of the defense attorneys said during this emergency hearing. Apparently, the defense team had been working on filing this petition for the judge to further question this holdout juror even before the developments we saw in court this morning.

So before that latest note from the jury came in, the defense had already planned to petition the judge to effectively go further with this juror. Areva, I wonder at this point, what you anticipate we will hear from the Supreme Court in the sense that it's uncertain how it's going to impact the rest of the strategy going forward for either side. As you said, it's unclear what is going to change. So now what do both sides do? How does what the Supreme Court decides potentially impact what they move forward with?

MARTIN: Yeah, the judge -- the single judge on the Supreme Court, I guess, could order Judge Sullivan to conduct a hearing, a voir dire of sorts, as it relates to this one juror. And again, admonish that juror about the importance of following the proper legal standard. But what Judge Sullivan cannot do is delve into the reasoning behind this juror's position on this case.

And we're getting very close to what is probably going to be very troublesome territory because this one juror has already been questioned. Yesterday, the judge brought all 12 jurors in, asked each and every one of them if they were capable and willing to follow his instructions, and they all said yes. So there's a certain amount of hubris, I think, even with the foreperson suggesting that because this one juror is not agreeing with the 11, that somehow that means they're not following the law.

So I'm not sure that Judge Sullivan is going to want to repeat what he already did yesterday. It appears from what he said earlier this morning, he's ready to declare a mistrial because these jurors have told him now, not once, but repeatedly, that they cannot reach a unanimous decision.

KEILAR: Areva, how much -- if a mistrial is declared here, and this does get retried, how much in a way does this first trial become like a dress rehearsal where the prosecution might mount a better case? Because let's be honest, at the beginning, it was this suicide. It wasn't a real suicide. And then even their experts couldn't back up some of what they were saying in their opening argument. It seemed like where they settled in their closing argument was actually kind of more effective than how they opened up.

There were some things they failed to prove. How could they sort of redo that case, take what they learned and mount a case against Lindsay Clancy that might be a lot more effective?

MARTIN: Well, I think both sides have learned a lot. The defense knows that, at least from what this note has shown us, that there are 11 jurors that believe that some kind of acquittal or she should not be found guilty, at least on a serious murder charge. I think that's what we can read from this drama that's playing out with the jurors. And that's encouraging. It has to be encouraging to the defense and their team.

Now, what the prosecution does with that is they're going to have to assess how they present evidence to a different set of 12 people that will convince them that she had the wherewithal despite her mental health issues to plan and to methodically go through with the strangling of each of her children.

[14:13:00]

Something about the prosecution's case based on, again, what we know to date did not resonate with 11 jurors. Now how the prosecution puts on a more effective case remains to be seen, but clearly, they're going to have to do something different than what they did in this original case.

SANCHEZ: Judge, last word to you. If this is eventually declared a mistrial, do you imagine that we will see a similar scenario play out months, a year or more from now if this case is retried?

KIESEL: I think it depends on how the case is retried. Both sides, as Ms. Martin just indicated, both sides have a lot to learn from -- although it seems the prosecution more so than the defense, have a lot to learn based on the case that was presented and how the jurors are apparently viewing this.

So it seems that the wise thing would be that the prosecution streamline, address the issues of mental health in the best way they can to indicate that indeed mental health wasn't the reason for this horrible calamity, tragedy, and see if it can convince 12 people. That's the way to view this. But you never know -- you never know.

In fact, perhaps this should be a basis for some type of plea negotiations, although I don't know that either side could ever come to some type of center on this case.

KEILAR: Yeah, you're not the first one to mention that possibility, so we shall see. Retired Judge, Diane Kiesel, thank you so much. Areva Martin, thank you so much.

If you could stand by for us, because we are following the very latest from Plymouth, Massachusetts in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:16:38]

KEILAR: We are awaiting, obviously, the decision from the State Supreme Court when it comes to the Lindsay Clancy trial right now. Her lawyer, her defense lawyer, has petitioned the State Supreme Court. So kind of going over the head of the judge in the case that he has been pursuing or he's been defending his client against, and asking for relief, asking that they force the judge in this case to inquire into the ability of an identified juror to apply the law or to prohibit the further deliberations of that juror who was identified by the jury foreperson.

A lot of discussion over this with our experts here. There is some activity in the courtroom right now. Let's go to our Jean Casarez, who is there outside of the court in Plymouth. Jean, what can you tell us?

CASAREZ: Well, we've got the attorneys close to the courtroom, and I believe the assistant district attorneys we saw just go into the courtroom along with the district attorney, once again, of Plymouth County.

And in reviewing the motion that the legal filing that the defense has filed, they are adamant that this judge, Judge Sullivan, should inquire of this juror to note his bias, as they state, that he cannot be a fair and impartial juror because it deprives the defendant of having a fair trial. And after that, they are asking the Supreme Judicial Court to acknowledge that he should then have that juror dismissed, and another juror begin deliberating with the jury.

Now, this is what the defense wants from Judge Sullivan, but they feel that route to get that result is from the highest court in the commonwealth.

SANCHEZ: And we understand, Jean, that --

(CROSSTALK)

CASAREZ: We do know the defense attorney has just entered into the courtroom also. He's on the phone with his team. And as we can see, Boris, I just want to tell you, you can tell from this hearing today, there is a team around Kevin Reddington. He's not the sole practitioner doing it all himself.

There is an actual team that started writing the motions for him of what to do if something like this would happen. And they filed it truly minutes after he had said in court that he was going to the highest court here.

SANCHEZ: Yeah. As we heard from a member of his team, this was in the works. They've been planning for this after yesterday's developments.

CASAREZ: Yes.

SANCHEZ: Jean, please stand by. We still have Judge Diane Kiesel with us. Judge, I just wonder what is going through your mind as a moment ago you were describing this as unlike anything you had seen before. By the way, we're showing our viewers. Let's actually listen in to the courtroom in Plymouth, Massachusetts right now.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We return back to the matter of Commonwealth v. Lindsay Clancy. All parties are present, excluding the jury.

JUDGE WILLIAM SULLIVAN, PLYMOUTH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT: All right. Counsel, it's my understanding that the SJC issued their order that the emergency request for relief was denied and that the temporary stay is lifted. And so, it would be my intention at this time to call the jurors back in and, as I indicated to you before, to declare mistrial.

KEVIN REDDINGTON, CLANCY'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I understand, Your Honor. And at the risk of incurring the wrath of the court, I'd like to raise an additional issue just for purposes of the federal law because this, I believe, constitutes a violation of the United States Constitution, a federal issue.

[14:20:12]

In our circuit, which is the First Circuit, when a jury reports through a foreperson that, in mid-deliberation, that a juror refuses to follow the law, the issue is handled under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23b, but the law itself that we're dealing with clearly indicates that a judge has the authority to excuse a deliberating juror for "good cause" and allow the remaining 11 jurors to return a valid verdict and/or with the substitution of one of the jurors that have been waiting, obviously, as alternates.

While the First Circuit acknowledges that a juror's refusal to follow the law or instructions constitutes good cause for dismissal, it does impose procedural issues as to how the court would navigate, which would require a hearing. The court standard is United States v. Sepulveda, S-E-P-U-L-V-E-D-A, First Circuit 1993, and in that case, Your Honor, which is significant precedent, the First Circuit addressed the underlying concept of nullification where a juror refuses to follow the court's instructions.

And in the Sepulveda case, the court held that while jurors possess a raw power to acquit for any reason, they have a significant duty, and their duty requires them to apply the law as given to them by the court. If a juror abdicates this duty, it triggers the court's authority to intervene, and the court would then have a procedure where you would inquire, just like a hearing like we were suggesting that the court should have a hearing.

So I would suggest, Your Honor, that clearly under the First Circuit law, federal law as well as the argument to the court, Massachusetts law, that we have a juror who has, according to the foreperson, is the only person who is basically holding out, so to speak. Und unfortunately, they're not holding out based on a good faith issue with the facts or with the law, but they're holding out as a result, that even though they have agreed and expressed doubt, they are refusing to apply the law as you've given it. So I would ask again that you conduct a hearing and understand that you're probably going to deny that.

SULLIVAN: For reasons, as I stated earlier this morning, that request will be denied.

All right. So are we ready to bring the jury in?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Court, all rise. This court is now in session. Please be seated.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your Honor, for the purpose of the record, we return the -- present for the court, 12 deliberating jurors and six alternates in the matter of Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy. All other parties are present.

SULLIVAN: All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Welcome.

SULLIVAN: All right. Members of the jury, at this point, 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, and I'm kind of a history buff. 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. We 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.

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.

[14:25:00]

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, that 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, in behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Thank you so much.

The only thing I am going to ask, one more thing, is that what I'd like to do is be able to come back and thank you personally. I'm going to have to talk to the council for just a couple of minutes. So, if you could stay just for a couple of minutes, not to go over the deliberations or anything like that, but just to thank you personally, again, for just an incredible commitment and dedication that each and every one of you showed here.

So, I just want to thank you so much. And with that, you're discharged. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Court, all rise. Jurors, this way please. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The jurors have exited the court on this conscience. Please be seated.

SULLIVAN: All right. And I think what I had said at the end of the evidence, I just kind of wanted to echo again, I wanted to compliment all three counsel. A trial like this, so hard, so difficult. And so, I just kind of wanted to thank the three of you for your efforts in regards to this. And so, with that, if you talked, I think we should probably pick a status date where we are, a trial assignment date, so we can talk about where we are.

(CROSSTALK)

REDDINGTON: I would ask, Judge. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.

SULLIVAN: Yeah, go ahead.

REDDINGTON: I know I would like to argue a 25(b)(2), and that has to be done within five days. So, I mean, I would like, if possible, to have this on for a hearing on a motion for required finding reconsideration 25(b)(2) on Tuesday. And my request, assuming that you deny that motion, would be that we empanel the following Monday.

SULLIVAN: That would require, I'm going to have to check my schedule.

(CROSSTALK)

REDDINGTON: Of course, yeah.

SULLIVAN: And also, so, what I'm going to suggest, I understand that's the request. And my thinking is to try it sooner rather than later, but I'm not sure that sooner. And it's a situation, I also have to check the trial court schedule, counsel schedule, witnesses' schedule, but my thought would be to try this. You know, if we could do it, maybe sometime later in the fall. But why don't we pick a date, maybe a couple of weeks down the road, so everybody could get their calendars together and kind of see where we go, all right?

REDDINGTON: What about the 25(b)(2), the motion for required finding reconsideration within five days?

SULLIVAN: We can file it. Do we have to have a hearing within the five days?

REDDINGTON: I'd like to, but I mean --

SULLIVAN: I know you'd like to, but I, you know -- maybe we could do it later in the week. Maybe not Tuesday, maybe Thursday or so.

REDDINGTON: Sure.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And I'm going to be out of the state until the 22nd.

SULLIVAN: All right. Well, as long as it's filed -- do you want to pick, what we could do is pick that status date, trial assignment date, and actually then do the argument for the 25, Rule 25.

REDDINGTON: OK.

SULLIVAN: Maybe that week of the 28th?

(LAUGH)

REDDINGTON: Supposed to start a murder in Pittsfield. I'm hoping that that's going to be continued, so I would ask if it's agreeable with the court and counsel, if we could have Tuesday the 29th.

SULLIVAN: (Inaudible)?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's fine.

REDDINGTON: Thank you.

SULLIVAN: So why don't we do that? 29th?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Would that be at two o'clock or nine?

REDDINGTON: Doesn't matter to me.

SULLIVAN: Let's say nine o'clock. Why don't we say nine o'clock? OK, we'll come in.

You'll have the defendant brought in?

REDDINGTON: Yes, please.

SULLIVAN: All set.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In the matter of Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy, the court declares a mistrial. All prior bail orders remain in full force and effect. This matter is continued to September 29th --