Lindsay Clancy judge declares mistrial, discharges jury

Court is now in session. Please be. seated. >> Good morning. May I proceed? >> Yes, please. >> Your honor, before the court, we have. the matter of Commonwealth versus. Lindseay Clancy. Miss Clancy is present. She is represented by attorney Kevin. Readington. The Commonwealth is. represented by Assistant District. Attorney Jennifer Sprag and Assistant. District Attorney Shannon Buckingham. >> All right. Well, good morning everyone. Good morning, council. Morning. >> Hi. Good morning, Miss Clancy. >> Morning, your honor. >> All right. So, at the end of the day. yesterday, there was a note that uh was. sent in from the jury.

uh and. we put over to today to address it. Um. Carl, if you had the opportunity to. review that note. >> Yes, your honor. >> All right. A defendant, you had your. opportunity. >> Yes, your honor. >> All right. And so. uh I will hear from the parties as to. how the. each party suggests or requests I deal. with that note. Um so I want to hear.

from the comm first. >> Thank you your honor. Um I apologize for. my voice. Um so Commonwalth's suggestion. is that the jurors uh be instructed to. return to their deliberations uh without. any further instruction of order. The. basis for that request is Comwalth. versus Ronkey Rhi. 491 Mass 284 from 2023. Um in that case.

it's a similar situation um where it's. reported one juror um is having issues. uh with the other jurors. Um and it says. in that case where reliable information. comes to a judge suggesting a lack of. impartiality, bias, extraneous influence. or inability to deliberate that there. should be an individual wardier hearing. regarding that. We don't have any of th. those circumstances here. Um there's no. indication of a lack of impartiality or. bias or extraneous influence and no.

indication of inability to deliberate. In fact, they've deliberated for a very. long time in this case and very. conscientiously. Uh so what we have here. is a note that indicates a disagreement. about how to weigh the evidence and. that's deliberation. Um so Sakal's. position uh especially considering the. fact that your honor vaire at each of. the jurors yesterday and they all said. that they could follow your. instructions. So when you couple that. with the requirements of rank I don't. think an individual vadier is necessary. If your honor does determine to do one,

uh we would just ask along the lines of. um all the case law in this area, Roni, Williams, Torres, um the whole string of. cases that the juror be instructed not. to comment on the deliberations and that. the juror be told that he could he or. she cannot be discharged unless a. personal problem unrelated to their. relationship with the jurors or their. views on the case. and that um any. attempt or any um any comments by the. juror that tend to get into.

deliberations that your honor interrupt. um and remind the juror that we're not. to get into that um and that questioning. be ceased of the juror unless he or she. indicates that there is a personal. problem unrelated to the case or the. relationships. >> All right. Thank you. Uh defendant, >> thank you very much your honor. um. appreciate the opportunity to uh argue. this to you. Um couple of points that. occur to me. Um, first of all, as as.

your honor is well aware, a defendant, any defendant in in this courtroom or. any courtroom in our country, um, is. entitled to have um a a juror who is. true to their oath who will agree that. they will apply the facts as they. determine them to be proven beyond a. reasonable doubt to the law as given to. them by you as a judge or any other. judge. Um if a jury uh consists of. people and there's one person who is.

refusing u to actually apply the law to. the facts as determined for reasons that. are not um arising out of the case but. are personal to the juror's position. regarding their review of their oath and. how they should apply their oath. In. other words, if it's personal to this. individual, um, which I believe it is. based on the first question that you. had, and I have never seen a situation.

like this where a four person on the. jury is so courageous as to speak on. behalf of 11 jurors and indicate that. juror number, which I will not mention, and I quote, has made statements. acknowledging doubt but re but but. refuses to apply it to the verdict as. the law states.

Clearly, judge, we have a person who. under their oath stood in front of you. yesterday when you did the individual. voad and according to this information. under oath looked you in the eye and. lied. That juror told you that he would be. able to apply the law to the facts as. you asked them. And based on this note. from this juror, it clearly and. unequivocally indicates that they are.

basically 11 to one and this person will. not apply reasonable doubt to the. evidence to return a not-uilty verdict. Um, I would ask that the court would, and I know it's awkward. I'm familiar. with the law. I know that we we try to. protect and preserve the sanctity, if. you will, of the jury, we don't want to. invade their deliberations. We want to. keep that private. Obviously, that's a. good thing to do. But when you have a.

situation where you have not one but two. notes that clearly indicates that this. individual has acknowledged doubt. but refuses to apply it to the verdict. He is as the law states. he is not being honest with you at the. sidebar. I would go so far as to. reluctantly say that the individual has. made a false statement under oath to. this court. There has to be an issue.

that is not arising out of deliberations. and the facts of this case, but the. individual is refusing to apply your. instructions on proof beyond a. reasonable doubt to allow that jury to. return a verdict of not guilty. >> If your honor, I just wanted to put on. the record that the note does not. indicate that this juror lied to your. honor when responding. The note. indicates that the parties disagree on. what is reasonable doubt or what doubt.

is and how it should be applied. And we. are in no position to judge if the 11. are right or the one is right. But. there's no indication that the juror is. intentionally trying to mislead the. court or lie to the court. >> All right. Thank you. Well, as all three. council are aware, uh the case law. spells out kind of the concerns that. everybody has in a situation like this. where it says the discharge of a. deliberating juror is sensitive. undertaking, fraught with potential. error. It's to be done only in special.

circumstances with special precautions. A judge must take the utmost caution to. avoid invading the province of the jury. That's what I'm concerned with in this. at this point. uh and as even under the. statute during deliberations a juror. properly may be discharged only for. reasons personal to that juror having. nothing whatsoever to nothing whatever. I'm sorry to do with the issues of the. case or with the juror's relationship. with their fellow jurors. Uh in this.

case here I see no showing of the need. for an inquiry of this particular juror. Um the note uh that we were referring to. the one from late yesterday afternoon uh. indicates that uh the juror has says. acknowledge doubt but refuses to apply. it to the verdict. Well, the instruction. that the SJC has suggested we give in. regards to reasonable doubt and that.

both parties agreed to says that. reasonable doubt does not mean proof. beyond all possible doubt. And so in. reading that note carefully and strictly. in the way that I have to before I. possibly invade the province of the. jury, that note does not indicate that. this is a person who has refused to. follow the law. And in addition, as the. parties recognize yesterday, we brought.

all the jurors in, including the juror. who uh is at issue here, and we asked I. asked whether or not those jurors could. follow the instructions, including the. instruction I just referred to. Uh and. uh the all the jurors indicated that. they could. This is not a case that that. there's any indication that the juror uh. has refused to deliberate. uh or has any reason uh has indicated uh.

that they would not follow the law or. that they're physically suffering or. there's no note from the juror that uh. indicates that the juror uh cannot or. will not be able to continue. deliberating as some of the other cases. talk about. Uh so uh so for reasons of. for that I'm not going to uh do a. further inquiry of this juror uh over. the defendant's objection. Uh and at. that point my inclination would be to.

bring the jury back. Um if my thought. would be though to remind them uh that. it's their duty to accept the law as I. give it to them and that they have to. follow that law. And I think this is. what I told them a week ago. They have. to follow whether they like it or not. Uh so I'm going to uh give them that. instruction uh and remind them of that. >> Uh so with that, >> you go ahead.

>> Oh, I was just going to ask that the. court also instruct the jurors or remind. them that any future notes should not. contain any information about. deliberation. >> Here's Well, here's what I was going to. say. If there's any notes or any future. notes, if there are any, you should. refrain from detailing any of the actual. deliberations and do not indicate where. they stand numerically. >> A couple of things. First of all, your. honor acknowledges that I have an. objection, which I appreciate, and I do. have an objection, and I am again citing. Article 12, uh, Sixth Amendment, the. United States Constitution. This is this.

goes beyond Massachusetts law. This is. constitutional. It's it's a structural I. suggest respectfully defect in the. procedure that we're engaged in. We're. elevating form over substance and that's. your honor's ruling. I understand of. objected, but I would ask that you not. instruct the jury that they cannot um. indicate anything and I understand why. traditionally we tell jurors, don't let. us know what your division is or what. your split is. But in this case, I I'm.

I'm concerned that if you do that, that. four person is going to feel that that. is some type of that she violated. something and might feel that your honor. is kind of coming down on her not to do. that. And I think it's too delicate. right now a situation. And in addition, and finally, 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. >> I think I did that yesterday, didn't I? >> Yes. >> You did it yesterday. You did it soft. You didn't do it forcefully. And I'm. asking what do you want me to do? Get. 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. >> Well, my point, judge, 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. >> But it just just in case the record is. 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, uh, trust me, that's not the.

situation. I've been thinking about this. uh for quite a while. So, that's my. that's what I'm going to do. Uh, I'm. going to just give that instruction, as. I said, that they have to follow follow. my instructions. Uh, I'm not going to uh. reiterate the uh reasonable doubt at. this point. It may come to that again if. as we go through it. Uh and I'll try and. give this with with more pizzazz than I. gave yesterday, I suppose. Um but uh so.

with that, we'll bring the jury back in. and uh. I'll ask the questions. I'll give those. kind of that instruction and we'll send. them back out. Okay. All right.

Hey hey all persons having anything to. do before the honorable William Sullivan.

justice of the spir now sitting at. within and for the commonwealth. broadenance and you shall be heard God. save the comm of Massachusetts this. court is now in session please be seated. Good morning. May I proceed? >> Yes, please. >> Your honor, present before the court, we. have 12 deliberating jurors and six. alternates in the matter of Commonwealth. versus Lindseay Clancy. Miss Clancy is. present. She is represented by attorney. Kevin Readington. The Commonwealth is. represented by Assistant District. Attorney Jennifer Sprag and Assistant.

District Attorney Shannon Buckingham. >> All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Uh. good morning, everyone. Uh what I want to do is first ask you. those questions uh and then move on from. there. So the f the first question as we. all know is going to be is any member of. the jury read, seen, heard or overheard. anything from any source uh about this. case that would affect your ability to. be a fair and impartial juror? >> The last of these questions is is there. any other serious matter or concern.

bearing on your service as a juror in. this case that anybody needs to bring to. my attention at this time? Thank you. All right. So, I did get uh. the note yesterday and one thing I would. say if if there's if there are any notes. in the future, and I'm not saying there. are, but if there are, just don't uh. make sure we don't put down where. everybody is numerically. Okay? Um but. what I wanted to do was give you uh go. over one thing. I wanted to remind you, as I instructed you earlier, it's your.

duty as jurors to accept the law as I. stated to you. You should consider all. of my instructions as a whole. You may. not ignore any instruction or give. special attention to any one. instruction. You must follow the law as. I give it to you, whether you agree with. it or not. The law that I'm instructing. you on is the law that's been. established by our legislature and our. appellet courts. Uh, and it applies to. everyone. And you must apply the law as. I have instructed you. And you have a.

copy of the instructions that I gave. you. We should still have them back. there with the jury room. Uh, and with. that, you may now resume your. deliberations. >> All right.

The jurors have exited the discourse in. session. Please be seated. >> All right. Council, anything we need to. address at this time? >> No, you're honor. >> Senate. >> One second. Your honor, please. >> No. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. So, we'll be in recess. on this matter. Thank you, everyone. >> All rise.

is back in session. You may be seated. >> Your honor, for the purpose of the. record, we return back to the matter of. Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy. All. parties are present excluding the jury. >> All right. Council, have you seen the uh. the question? >> Yes, your honor. >> Yes. >> All right. And the question uh 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 uh.

my well let me ask what what is the. party's position in regards to that. question. >> your honor um from the comm's. perspective since the two instruction. has already been given and then there. was likely deliberation after that I. think that it would require a mistrial. at this point. >> Attorney Rington. >> Uh your honor, my understanding is that. this court has the discretion to uh have.

the jury sent back for the second time. The first time that there was a report. um we did not treat it as a report of. deadlock. We did not instruct them under. tui. We did not give them soft tui. We. didn't give them anything. We just sent. them back to deliberate. So technically. we have one report of uh deadlock that. your honor gave the Tui Rodriguez charge. to um I believe under the statute as. well as the uh the case law this court. has the ability to send the jury back.

The fact that that jury person 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 a wise decision for this court to. send it back under the law. >> Well, I I would find that under case. Massachusetts case law statutory law um. the jury did not ask to be sent back uh.

which it would be a possibility if they. had requested it to be sent back to. them. But uh under the statute and the. case law, I don't feel I have any choice. but to declare a mistrial. >> Well, before you do, I'd like to be. heard, your honor. >> Well, that's why I asked you before, but. go ahead. >> Well, I just got to that first one. I. didn't get to the other one. Um, your honor, I would suggest to the. court that as we are pretty much all. familiar with, um, under Karen Reed. 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 uh, quote, gives a. trial judge discretion to require a jury. to return a verdict for charges on which. they have agreed before declaring a. mistrial. um as it relates to and again I continue. quote 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. 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. U and if that's the. case, and I certainly would argue that.

double jeopardy is attached and those. judges cannot be prosecuted again. >> All right, Carl, >> I would object to that, your honor. I. would go into the deliberations. I think. we're in a different scenario here than. the Reed case where I believe in that. case they did reach a verdict on certain. charges and not on others. Um but um I. think here where we've had a jury who's. been deliberating for six and a half. days, who's come back um on multiple. occasions saying that they're. deadlocked, who have been given to um I. don't think anything else is required at. this point um other than um the.

declaration of a mistrial, unfortunately. >> Over the defendant's objection, uh. I'm going to declare a mistrial at this. point. All right. All right. All right, if we bring the jury in.

All. right.

Ron, while we're waiting for the jury, um, forgive me for raising this issue, I. would ask that before you formally. declare a mistrial that the court uh. afford us the opportunity to take a 2113. appeal direct to the Supreme Judicial. Court single justice on this issue.

because of any number of issues that are. of concern, others that have been. addressed in the motions, the. objections, but I further uh raised the. issue of the American with Disabilities. Act. I believe that this is a a. situation where there is a clear and. present danger that this individual for. some reason it is. We don't know, but is. is taking a position. that's intractable regardless of proof. beyond a reasonable doubt. So, I I want. an opportunity to take an appeal to the.

single justice if the court will afford. us that opportunity. >> How much time do you need to do that? >> I' I'd have it filed uh today and argue. tomorrow, >> Saturday. >> They would do it on an emergency. Yeah. I mean, I could. >> So, were you going to tell this jury to. come back tomorrow? I I'm just trying to you know I I 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 asking for. is time to file a single justice appeal. for this travesty. That's what I'm. asking for. >> So you're asking for emergency stay at. this point? >> Yes. >> And the jurors don't have to come back. tomorrow. They can be told that. >> they don't even have to come back if if. I lose the motion. But if I win the. motion, then obviously they would have. to come back Tuesday. >> I'll if 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. Um I think you could. it's just a a request for the stay of. the declaration of the mistrial. Um so. I'll hold off for an hour uh and then. we'll come back in uh in regards to. that. Okay. >> All right. All rise. This court is now in session. Please be. seated. Your. >> honor, for the purpose of the record, we.

return back to the matter. Conwell. versus Lindseay Clancy. All parties are. present, excluding the jury. >> All right. Council, it's my. understanding that um the SJC uh issued. their order that the emergency request. for relief was denied and that the. temporary stay is lifted. Um and so it. would be my intention at this time to. call the jurors back in. Um and as I. indicated to you before to declare. mistrial. I understand your honor and uh. at the risk of uh incurring the wrath of.

the court, I'd like to uh raise an. additional issue just for purposes of. the federal law um because this I. believe constitutes a violation of the. United States Constitution and federal. issue. Uh in our circuit, which is the. first circuit, uh when a jury reports uh. through a fourperson 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 uh clearly indicates. that a j a judge has the authority to. excuse a deliberating juror for quote. good cause end quote uh and allow the. remaining 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. Um 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 the court would navigate uh and. which would require a hearing. Um the. core standard is United States versus. separator sepa. first circuit 1993. and in that case your honor which is. significant precedent the first circuit. addressed the underlying concept of. nullification and where a juror refuses. to follow the court's instructions and. in the sepa 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 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 uh first. circuit law, federal law as well as.

argumenting to the court Massachusetts. law that we have a juror who has. according to the four person is the only. person who is basically holding out so. to speak and 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 as far 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. >> for reasons as I stated uh earlier this. morning. Um that request will be denied. All right. Um so we ready to uh bring. the jury in. All.

right. All right. This court's now in session. Your.

>> honor, for the purpose of the record, we. return present for the court. Uh 12. deliberating jurors and six alternates. in the matter versus Lindseay Clancy. All other parties are present. >> All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. >> Welcome. >> All right. Members of the jury, uh, at. this point, I'm going to declare that. the jury is, uh, deadlocked and I'm. going to declare a mistrial. All right. Uh, I just wanted to make. a comment. Um, and it I'm kind of a.

history buff. And during World War II, Winston Churchill was the prime minister. for England when England pretty much. stood against Nazi Germany alone. And so. Churchill often times had to talk to the. citizens and say, "Let us brace for our. duties." I always like that phrase. And. I thought of that phrase when all of you. were agreeing to be on this jury. You.

agreed to brace for that duty. And each. one of you knew how long the case was. going to go. You knew how difficult uh. the case was going to be to listen to. fact-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. I. understood that you all gave everything. you could and probably more than you. thought you could. Um and so on 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 myself. and behalf of the Commonwealth of. Massachusetts. Thank you so much. The.

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. Um uh I'm going to have to. talk to the uh council for just a couple. of minutes. Um so if you could stay just. for a couple of minutes, not to go over. the uh the deliberations or anything. like that, but just to thank you. personally again for for just an. incredible uh commitment and dedication. that each and every one of you showed. here. So I just want to thank you so. much and with that uh you're discharged.

Thank you. >> All right. Just wait. Good job.

The jurors have exited the court on this. court in session. All. right. And I think what I had said at the end. of the uh the evidence, I just kind of. wanted to echo again. I wanted to. compliment all three council. Uh a trial. like this so hard, so difficult. Um and. so I just kind of wanted to to thank the. three of you for your efforts in regards. to this. Um, and so with that,

if you talked, I think we should. probably pick a a status date. Um, and a. where we are a trial assignment date. Um, >> I would ask Judge, sorry, I didn't mean. to interrupt. >> I know I I would like to argue a 25B2. and that has to be done within 5 days. So, I mean, I would like, if possible, to have this on for a hearing on a. motion for required finding. reconsideration 25B2 on Tuesday. And my.

request, assuming that you deny that. motion, would be that we impanel the. following Monday. >> That would require I'm going to have to. check my schedule. Um, and also, so what. I'm going to suggest, I understand. that's the the request. Um, and my my. thinking is to try it sooner rather than. later, but I'm not sure that's sooner. Um, and uh it's a situation I also have. to check uh the trial court schedule, council schedule, um witnesses schedule.

Um but my thought would be to try this, you know, if we could do it maybe. sometime later in the fall. Um, but why. don't we pick a date maybe a couple of. weeks down the road so everybody could. get their calendars together um and kind. of see where we go. >> All right. >> What about the 25 V2? The motion for. required finding reconsideration within. 5 days. >> You can file it. Do we have to have a. hearing within the 5 days? >> I'd like to, but I mean. >> I know you'd like to, but I you know um.

>> maybe we could do it later in the week. Maybe not Tuesday. Correct. >> Um maybe Thursday or so. >> I'm going to be out of the state until. the 22nd. >> All right. Well, as long as it's filed, um. do you want to pick we could do is pick. that status date, trial assignment date, it actually will then do the argument uh. for the 25 rule 25. >> Okay.

Um. maybe that week of the the 28th. um. supposed supposed to a murder in. Pittsfield. Um I'm hoping that that's. going to be continued. So uh I would ask. if it's agreeable with the court um and. council if we could have Tuesday the. 29th.

com. >> That's fine. >> So, why don't we why don't we do that? >> 29th. >> Would that be at 2 o'clock or 9? >> Doesn't matter to me. >> Let's see. 9:00. Why don't we say 9:00? We come in. and we'll have uh the defendant brought. in. >> Yes, please.

All set. >> In the matter of Commonwealth versus. Lindseay Clancy, the court declares a. mistrial. All prior bail orders remain. in full force in effect. This matter is. continued to September 29th, 2026 at. 9:00 a.m. for status trial assignment in. the rule 25 motion in Plymouth. >> All right, council. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All rise. Yes.