Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Clancy Jury Back In Court After Tensions Flare Over Holdout; Clancy Prosecutors, Defense Return To Courtroom, Reason Unclear. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired September 04, 2026 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:00]

ANDY SCHOLES, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: They had exhausted all of their eligibility, but then they were suddenly given that extra year. That's why some of these players who didn't make it in the NFL want to come back because if the ruling had happened earlier, they probably would have never left college to begin with.

Now, we do have some big games this weekend. We'll see if Kiffin ends up with those players on his roster tomorrow night. LSU, they're going to kick off against Clemson 7:30 Eastern in Baton Rouge. That's a big game Saturday.

No NFL yet this weekend, so we got some big games on Sunday night as well. Wisconsin versus Notre Dame. That one's at Lambeau Field, which will be pretty cool. You got Ole Miss also taking on Louisville in Nashville. So, Pam, a big weekend of college football as this battle in the courts is going on at the very same time.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Andy, don't kill me, but I'm from Kentucky and Louisville.

SCHOLES: Oh, sorry. That I, you know, I was reading fast, Pam. They were trying to rat me. I said it wrong.

BROWN: I'm still trying to get Wolf Blitzer to say it the right way, but most people can't. All right, Andy, thank you so much. Great to see you.

The next hour of The Situation Room starts right now.

Breaking news. Miracle in Nepal. Two men found alive after being trapped underground for nine days. We'll hear from one of those survivors.

And deadlocked drama. The jury in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial is deliberating once again after explosive accusations about a single holdout juror. Will Clancy's fate come down to that one person?

Welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm Pamela Brown. Wolf Blitzer is off. And you're in The Situation Room.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN breaking news. BROWN: And we begin with that breaking news. Tensions flare inside the courtroom between the judge overseeing the case and Lindsay Clancy's attorney, who's accusing one juror of refusing to listen to the law.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KEVIN REDDINGTON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I would ask that you specifically direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and reinstruct them on that forcefully.

JUDGE WILLIAM SULLIVAN, PLYMOUTH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT: I think I did that yesterday, didn't I?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

REDDINGTON: You did it yesterday. You did it soft. You didn't do it forcefully. And I'm asking --

SULLIVAN: What do you want me to do? 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.

REDDINGTON: Well, my point, 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.

SULLIVAN: But just in case the record's clear, 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.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: The deadlock jury is back deliberating after a series of dramatic developments over the past day raised more questions and answers in the case. Yesterday, a note from the jury's foreperson offered the biggest glimpse yet into the panel's nearly 40 hours of discussion.

According to Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, the jury is split 11 to one. Reddington went on to request that one juror be removed. Clancy is on trial for the murder of her three young children, and it's up to the jury to decide whether she is criminally liable. Clancy's defense argues she was experiencing postpartum psychosis at the time of the killings.

CNN correspondent Jean Casarez is live for us right outside that courthouse in Plymouth, Massachusetts. So where do things go from here, Jean?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I think the jury is in control. They are deliberating. They are the leaders right here. We have to follow their lead. So until there is a communication from this jury, and remember, they started deliberating a week ago yesterday. So now we're starting a second week of deliberations on the brink of a holiday weekend. But we just have to wait and see if they communicate at all to the court.

BROWN: I want to play a particularly telling moment from what the judge said in court this morning about what the note from yesterday indicated. Actually, I think that was Kevin Reddington who indicated to the judge what was in it. Take a watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SULLIVAN: The note that we were referring to, the one from late yesterday afternoon, indicates that the juror has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: And Kevin Reddington was the one that said that juror was a male. Of course, we can't say for certain. What does it tell you, though? I mean, just how significant is this, that we're sort of being brought in to what's happening during the deliberations? It seems highly unusual, Jean.

CASAREZ: It's absolutely unusual because the sanctity of the jury deliberations are that they remain private and no one should interfere with all of that. But because of the jury foreperson sending a no, giving these specifics, and the jury foreperson who is a female may have believed that she needed to do that. You heard the judge today say, please don't give us your counts anymore of where you are, 11 to one or in the jury deliberations.

[11:05:23]

But that created an issue where the court had -- sort of had to get involved in the sanctity of the jury proceedings. But there's two distinct sides here. And the prosecution side is saying, look, they're just deliberating. There's not an issue here. The only way you get rid of a juror is if there is a personal situation on the part of that juror. And there is not here.

And the only reason a juror cannot deliberate anymore if there's bias or they're refusing to deliberate, and we don't have those facts here. They just have a difference of opinion. And that's the way the judge went. That's what he believes. And the jury now has the case.

BROWN: It appears, and Elyse Hershon told us this earlier, that 11 of the jurors are siding with the defense to some degree, at least. And this holdout is not. And so my question to you is, Jean, can you express doubt? Can you have doubt as a juror and still find the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay Clancy is criminally liable here? Because in Massachusetts, the burden is on the prosecution.

CASAREZ: It's an excellent question. And the judge in instructing them yesterday said that beyond a reasonable doubt is a very difficult thing to define. And it is not beyond all doubt. He said that. So what you're saying there is, yes, you could have a little bit of doubt. It's not beyond all doubt.

But as you look at the evidence and you assess and reflect the evidence, you believe to a degree of moral certainty that there is reasonable doubt or that the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt their case. So it's very innocuous, Pam. I mean, you have to decide within yourself if you believe that it is beyond a reasonable doubt or there is reasonable doubt. But remember, it's not it's not all doubt. It is the doubt that either to convict or to acquit.

BROWN: I think that's an important point. And you heard the judge really reiterate it. You have to follow the law. It's not about what your personal feelings are. You know, follow the law even if you don't like it.

CASAREZ: Right.

BROWN: We'll see if they come back today. Go ahead.

CASAREZ: Pam?

BROWN: Yes. Pam, we do understand the prosecutors, the prosecutors who have prosecuted this case are heading into the courtroom right now.

BROWN: OK.

CASAREZ: That is all we know.

BROWN: What does that tell you, Jean?

CASAREZ: It could be nothing. It could be something. Obviously, they have their prosecutor's table there. They have their notes there. Maybe they just want to look at something, but they don't routinely walk into the courtroom during a time like this. Normally, it is for a valid reason. But we just have to see if the defense attorney enters the courtroom.

But we want to give it to you as we hear it, as we know it. Our producer is standing there right next to the courtroom doors and tells us any movement whatsoever that may be going on. But this jury, until we know something, they continue to deliberate and they continue to look at this because the judge is saying, I asked all jurors if they can follow the law under oath yesterday and they said they did.

There's nothing else for me to do but let them deliberate. So let's just see. But that is that is the latest prosecutors have entered the courtroom. OK, the assistant district attorneys and the district attorney for Plymouth County has just entered that courtroom, too. So -- and Reddington, the defense attorney, is in the courtroom also. So this appears there is a movement in some form or fashion.

BROWN: And we don't know if Lindsay Clancy is there. I know your producer is helping me. So just for our audience to understand, we have a producer in the right and that producer is speaking to your producer, telling you what's going on. So that's what's happening right now. CASAREZ: And I think at this point, the media has not been allowed to enter the courtroom, so we cannot tell you definitively if the defendants in the courtroom, but she is watching those participants go into the courtroom at this case.

BROWN: OK.

CASAREZ: Because we have a live feed.

BROWN: OK, that makes sense. Jean Casarez, it seems like there could be some activity happening. So we're going to keep a close eye on what's going on there in Plymouth.

And as we do that, as we monitor what's happening, we want to have a broader conversation because this case is really shedding light on some of the postpartum issues women face, particularly when it comes to their mental health. And I want to talk about this more with Wendy Davis, president and CEO of Postpartum Support International. Wendy, thanks for coming on. From your organization's perspective, I want you to bring us into how this case is affecting women currently going through postpartum.

[11:10:17]

WENDY DAVIS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, POSTPARTUM SUPPORT INTL.: Thank you, Pamela. Thank you so much for having me here and having Postpartum Support International be able to come and talk about the resources that exist. There is so much at stake here. There's so much noise and there's so much attention. But one thing that we know for sure is there are resources to help. So I just appreciate so much having the opportunity to talk about postpartum.net.

We are seeing at Postpartum Support International, which offers peer support around the world, but especially our helpline right here in the United States that you can find at postpartum.net. We do peer support. We train providers. We have resources for legal professionals and we have volunteer navigators in every single state and 30 countries.

So here's what we're finding. Yes, people, women and men, dads too, pregnant postpartum or even many years postpartum, Pamela, are contacting us in far greater numbers than we usually have on average. When we look at the numbers that come to our helpline, which is voice, text, English and Spanish, we have had in the last three months an increase of nearly 70 percent. And when we compare it to last year, we've had 1,410 requests for help and referrals.

BROWN: What does that look like? You know, I know that I had postpartum OCD, for example. I'd say it every time I can, not because I want to talk about myself, but because I want other women to know they're not alone if they have it. And that means you have intrusive thoughts that you don't want, but you don't act on the thoughts. They feel really bad. And I know I've talked to other women who say that this has been really triggering for them, like they're worried, oh, my God, what if I just lost control and did something, you know, like Lindsay Clancy. Tell us about that and that anxiety that's for postpartum moms right now.

DAVIS: Pamela, thank you for sharing that, because you're doing what we know is the most important thing we can do, all of us, to prevent a crisis like this. When we talk about what's really happening, we, each of us, all of us together are reducing the stigma. We have to make this a part of the conversation, mental health in general, perinatal mental health, which are temporary, treatable conditions. When you talk about that, you are illustrating the impact of that.

This is what it looks like. People are afraid and people are worried that this will be them. Here's what we know for sure. All perinatal mental health disorders are temporary and treatable. But this visibility highlights what PSI, Postpartum Support International, and other experts have known for years. What we teach in our provider trainings, what we tell the families who call us who are so afraid, that it is not, you said it exactly right, it is not the perinatal mental health symptoms that are in themselves dangerous.

They're not. We want people to contact us. We're a clearinghouse. Find us on postpartum.net so we can tell each family and each provider this. The symptoms are not dangerous. We teach this and we tell families it is the untreated illness, right, that poses risks. All perinatal mental health disorders, including postpartum psychosis, but also depression, anxiety, bipolar mood disorders, are not inevitably dangerous.

So working together, providers, families, policy, we know we can prevent the tragedies. We can prevent the crisis when we teach all of us that the risk is in the lack of treatment. The risk is in the lack, as you said, Pamela, the lack of finding other people like you and, for example, calling our helpline or texting where we can say you found the right place. We're glad you found us. We understand these symptoms.

BROWN: Yes.

DAVIS: I haven't assessed or I don't know Lindsay Clancy, but I know all too well. We know her symptoms. We know her distress. We know her despair. We know that people can't find the help we need. And we -- this is why Postpartum Support International exists because we're right here. People need only to take the first step to contact or their family or their provider help them contact us at the helpline or call the National Maternal Mental Health Hotline and then we can help them take the rest of the steps to wellness.

[11:15:13]

BROWN: Yes, I think it's important. You know, with anxiety, for example, it's more about the emotional attachment to a thought. It doesn't mean the thought is true, right? And I just know so many women are just struggling right now postpartum. They're worried. And this is a case that has resonated with so many people. On -- it's just led to so many impassioned conversations on all sides of mental health. Why do you think that is?

DAVIS: Oh my goodness. This case absolutely, because I'm going to say this first, because it's really common. Up to one in five and in later research finding sometimes one in three women and one in 10 men experience true depression, anxiety, including the intrusive.

BROWN: I'm so sorry to interrupt, but there is a development actually in the trial. So we're going to go to Jean Casarez. But thank you for everything you said, Wendy Davis. Jean Casarez, what's going on?

CASAREZ: All right. Our producer has been led into the courtroom. The defense attorney sitting next to Lindsay Clancy. They have been talking. Kevin Reddington has papers at his desk. Prosecutors are in the courtroom at the prosecution table. The elected district attorney of Plymouth County is also in the courtroom. We are just waiting for the judge to take the bench.

So we see the seal. But until he takes the bench, you cannot see the actual courtroom. So we're waiting for that right now. But our producer asked a court officer who has readily said when there is a note, when there is a question, what is happening right now? And the court officer would not answer her. So I find that significant right there, that there was no response. But we're just moments away, I think, from finding out potentially a substantial development in this case.

Now, maybe it'll turn out to be another note. Maybe it will be a note, though, that will be extremely significant to this case. They've been deliberating right now for precisely almost 38 hours in that courtroom, in that little deliberation room. They have been focused for that long here. And we will see now, because I think the issue is 11 to one, is it now 12 jurors who are unanimous, or is it still a split? And that would mean that this case, the judge would potentially order a mistrial. Those are really the two options right here, verdict or mistrial. Pamela?

BROWN: All right. On that note, Jean, I want to bring in jury consultant attorney Alan Turkheimer to get your read, Alan, on what's taking place right now.

ALAN TURKHEIMER, JURY CONSULTANT ATTORNEY: Well, it'll be interesting to see what happens. But I think the big picture is it's been such a grueling process. Think about all the times the jury came back. And it's also interesting, too, and we'll hear about it when the jury talks. I don't think this was 11 to one from the beginning. Jurors tend to move positions, especially when they deliberate for this long.

It could have been six-six at one point. And jurors switch their allegiances. And there's just a lot that we don't know about. But at this point, what we do know is it's 11 to one. There's one juror holding out. And is this juror going to cave and be open to what the other jurors are saying? Is him disregarding or at least not heeding the high burden that the prosecution has? Or is this just going to end up where he's dug in, he's not going to relent, and the juror -- judge might have to call a mistrial if it's 11 to one and the jury says again they're deadlocked. If they come back, that's it.

It'll be a mistrial. I can't imagine under any circumstance, if it's 11 to one and the jury says they're deadlocked again, that the judge says, go ahead, go back and deliberate. I think this would be the end of the trial.

BROWN: That would be it. And at this point, what is the likelihood, Alan, from your experience, that they would come back with a verdict rather than deadlocked? I mean, after coming back a couple times saying that there was deadlock?

TURKHEIMER: It seems like this juror has withstood a lot of pressure. Now, certainly if it's a seven-five, if there's seven jurors against you, eight, nine, if you have other jurors arguing with your perspective and you share an outlook, it's easier to hold off any challenges.

So it's particularly difficult if it's 11 jurors staring you in the face trying to get you to budge, trying to get you to change your perspective. But since this has been such a long deliberation and they've been deadlocked, this juror has already withstood that for a long period of time. So I think there's a good chance that this juror is not going to change their mind and we have a really good chance of having a deadlock and then subsequently a mistrial.

[11:20:02]

BROWN: So, Jean, if there is a mistrial, what are the possibilities? Could both sides come together for a plea deal and a lesser charge? What could happen?

CASAREZ: Exactly what you're saying is true. That could happen, a plea deal to a manslaughter charge. Now, Kevin Reddington, with his passion, with his zealous advocacy for Lindsay Clancy, may not want that. He said he was ready to go to trial again next week if necessary. And so that may not be an option.

Prosecutor could decline any further trial. They will not bring charges again or they could want a retrial. And I think everyone believes the prosecution would potentially want a retrial here because the first trial can be a learning experience. You learn what worked -- you learn what didn't work, and you go for another round. Here's one thing we know. We're still waiting for the judge to take the bench in this -- in the courtroom, but Kevin Reddington has been pacing around near the defense table.

His hands are in his pockets. He finally, according to our producer in the courtroom, she used the word flopped. He flopped himself down into the seat. Obviously, the nervous tension is still there. The courtroom is packed wall-to-wall with people, many of them the public, wanting to be in this courtroom at this moment in time. But the courtroom can only hold so many people.

So there is a line of people outside the door hoping that if someone leaves the courtroom, they can get one of those coveted seats. It's a very nice day here in Plymouth. Lots of people are here. I hear right above me a helicopter, which is so common in high profile cases.

BROWN: Let's look at the court, Jean.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: On the record, we return back to the matter of Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy. All parties are present, excluding the jury.

SULLIVAN: All right. Counsel, have you seen the question?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, your honor.

REDDINGTON: Yes.

SULLIVAN: All right. And the question is, it is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to. My, well, let me ask what is the party's position in regards to that question?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your honor, from the Commonwealth's perspective, since the Tuey instruction has already been given and then there was lengthy deliberation after that, I think that it would require a mistrial at this point.

SULLIVAN: Attorney Reddington?

REDDINGTON: Your honor, my understanding is that this court has the discretion to have the jury sent back for the second time. The first time that there was a report, we did not treat it as a report of deadlock. We did not instruct them under Tuey. We did not give them soft Tuey. We didn't give them anything. We just sent them back to deliberate. So technically, we have one report of deadlock that your honor gave the Tuey-Rodriguez charge to, I believe, under the statute, as well as the case law.

This court has the ability to send the jury back. The fact that that jury foreperson wrote very unusually, it is with a heavy heart that we are unable to come to a decision. Based on the earlier questions that we have, I think that it would be a sound and wise decision for this court to send it back under the law.

SULLIVAN: Well, I would find that under Massachusetts case law and statutory law, the jury did not ask to be sent back, which would be a possibility if they had requested it to be sent back to them. But under the statute and the case law, I don't feel I have any choice but to declare mistrial.

REDDINGTON: Well, before you do, I'd like to be heard, your honor.

SULLIVAN: Well, that's why I asked you before, but go ahead. Go ahead.

REDDINGTON: Well, I just got to that first one. You can get to the other one.

SULLIVAN: All right.

REDDINGTON: Your honor, I would suggest to the court that, as we are pretty much all familiar with, under Karen Read versus the Commonwealth, the Supreme Judicial Court through Justice George's back in February of '25 held that under Rule 27B of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure, "Gives a trial judge discretion to require a jury to return a verdict for charges on which they have agreed before declaring a mistrial as it relates to," and again, I continue, "Judge may first require the jury to return verdicts on those charges upon which the jury can agree and direct that such verdicts be received and recorded."

It goes on further, and I quote, "Rule 27D also permits the judge to pull the jury when a verdict is returned and before the verdict is recorded. However, a judge is not required to accept a partial verdict before declaring a mistrial." So I'm asking that the court would entertain a poll of the jurors as to whether or not there has been a decision on murder one, murder two, manslaughter, anything like that. And if that's the case, then I certainly would argue that double jeopardy is attached and those judges cannot be prosecuted again.

[11:25:16]

BROWN: All right. Kamal (ph)?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I would object to that, your honor. I would go into the deliberations. I think we're in a different scenario here than the Read case where I believe in that case they did reach a verdict on certain charges and not on others. But I think here where we've had a jury who's been deliberating for six and a half days, who's come back on multiple occasions saying that they're deadlocked, who've been given two weeks, I don't think anything else is required at this point other than the declaration of a mistrial, unfortunately.

SULLIVAN: All right. Over the defendant's objection, I'm going to declare a mistrial at this point. All right. All right. We bring the jury in.

CASAREZ: All right. So we're waiting for the jury to enter the courtroom right now. The judge has made the final decision. He will order a mistrial in this case because the juror's note that was just given to him with a heavy heart, we are unable to come to a unanimous decision.

The defense argued that he send the jury back once again to continue to deliberate, that he has that right. Prosecution said, your honor, after six and a half days of deliberation and having had sent them back several times, this requires a mistrial. And the judge has now said that based on Massachusetts case law and based on his discretion, that he believes the only alternative at this point is that I am going to declare a mistrial.

So the defense had asked the jury to be polled. This is a very interesting point right here. He wants the jury to say on first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, if there was unanimity. Because if they say, hypothetically, we all were unanimous it was not first degree murder, then the defense will try to get double jeopardy attached. So the prosecution, if they retry this case, cannot bring a first degree murder charge.

We do not know if the judge is going to go into that specificity. He is not required to, because the reality is there was one verdict slip, and that verdict slip, the jurors are now saying we could not reach unanimity. REDDINGTON: I have been addressed in the motions, the objections, but I further raise the issue of the American with Disabilities Act. I believe that this is a situation where there is a clear and present danger that this individual, for some reason, what it is we do not know, but is taking a position that is intractable, regardless of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So I want an opportunity to take an appeal to the single justice if the court would afford us that opportunity.

SULLIVAN: How much time do you need to do that?

REDDINGTON: I would have it filed today and argue tomorrow.

SULLIVAN: Saturday?

REDDINGTON: They would do it on an emergency, yes. I mean --

SULLIVAN: Who are you going to tell this jury to come back tomorrow? I'm just trying to -- the reason I'm asking it, I know, but as they're walking in, you're asking for this. I'm just trying to find out what it is that you're asking for. That's all.

REDDINGTON: What I'm asking for is time to file a single justice --

SULLIVAN: Right.

REDDINGTON: -- appeal for this travesty. That's what I'm asking for.

SULLIVAN: So you're asking for emergency stay at this point?

REDDINGTON: Yes.

SULLIVAN: All right.

REDDINGTON: And the jurors don't have to come back tomorrow. They can be told -- they don't even have to come back if I lose the motion. But if I win the motion, then obviously they would have to come back Tuesday.

SULLIVAN: I'll -- if you want to go up and petition to the SJC for a stay, I'll give you an hour before we bring the jury back down. I think you could -- it's just a request for the stay of the declaration of the mistrial. So I'll hold off for an hour and then we'll come back in regards to that.

REDDINGTON: OK.

SULLIVAN: All right.

[11:30:01]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Court, all rise.

BROWN: Jean, that's a bit of a twist there.