By admin 
PLYMOUTH, Mass. (Gray News/AP) — A judge declared a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial Friday after jurors said they could not reach a unanimous verdict on whether she was criminally responsible for killing her three young children.
Read more Commissioner’s son pleads guilty in violent Las Vegas Strip robbery
The mistrial, in the seventh day of deliberations, leaves the case unresolved and allows prosecutors to try Clancy again.
EN ESPAÑOL | Declaran juicio nulo en el caso de Lindsay Clancy tras jurado no alcanzar veredicto
The deliberations took a dramatic turn late in the week when the judge said he was going to declare a mistrial Friday before suddenly changing course and giving her defense attorney a chance to appeal to the state’s highest appeals court.
That came a day after the foreperson told the judge that a lone holdout was refusing to follow the court’s instructions about reasonable doubt, offering a rare glimpse at possible conflict inside the jury room. Clancy’s attorney demanded the juror be kicked off the case.
The livestreamed trial drew attention to maternal mental health after childbirth and was closely watched by a polarized public. Clancy’s sympathizers saw her as a loving mom who had realized something was badly wrong in the months ahead of the killings and sought help, including checking herself in to a psychiatric hospital. Her detractors said she deserved to be punished for an evil and selfish act.
Heated argument with judge over instructions to jury
Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington got into a heated argument with the judge Friday morning over the judge’s instructions to the jury.
Reddington explained that he believed Judge William Sullivan was not forceful enough in his instructions to the jury about reasonable doubt.
On Thursday afternoon, the jury’s foreperson informed the judge that a single juror wasn’t following the court’s instructions about reasonable doubt.
Read more Man accused of impersonating Mesa officer, trying to get hotel room for free
The exchange offered a clear glimpse of what may be keeping jurors from reaching a verdict on whether the Massachusetts mother is criminally responsible for killing her three children.
After the foreperson notified the judge about the single juror who wasn’t following instructions, the judge re-read the instructions to the jury about reasonable doubt. Reddington said he would like that juror removed, but Sullivan said no.
Reddington brought up that conversation again Friday morning, letting the judge know he was still unhappy with how it unfolded.
Reddington: “I would ask that you not just give them, as I described it yesterday, a soft inquiry. Will you listen to my instructions? I would ask that you specifically direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and reinstruct them on that forcefully.”
Sullivan: “I did that yesterday, didn’t I?”
Reddington: “You did it yesterday, you did it soft, you didn’t do it forcefully, and I’m asking you to do it forcefully.”
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’m just giving the instructions.”
Reddington: “My point, judge, simply, is that you’re kind of glossing over the issue. The issue is, this juror will not, according to their note, apply the law of reasonable doubt…”
Sullivan: “… 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. I’ve been thinking about this for quite a while.”
Read more Judge clears a lawsuit against Kyrsten Sinema under NC’s ‘homewrecker’ law
The jury is continuing deliberations. Friday marks day seven.