Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Deadlocked Clancy Jury Sends Court a Note; Court Official: Clancy Jury Has Sent a Note; Judge Calling Jurors to Bench, Talking to Them One by One; Judge Orders Clancy Jury to Keep Deliberating 3-3:30p ET

Aired September 03, 2026 - 15:00   ET

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

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: ... judge put it yesterday, going after so much evidence, hearing from so many witnesses, it -- it sounds like he -- he can't send them back in to deliberate more, can he?

MARK O'MARA, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, technically he can. He does have the authority to do so. I do not think that he should. Thirty plus hours of true deliberations is enough.

My concern is they've now been sort of dynamite charged a couple of times. That -- don't forget, that is to get them either to talk about their -- their worst position, right, their weakest argument, and the strength of the argument that they are opposing.

But it's also their (INAUDIBLE) one juror ...

SANCHEZ: Mark, sorry to cut you off, we want to listen into the courtroom now. Let's go ahead and listen to this courtroom in Plymouth, Massachusetts.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE) ...

JUDGE WILLIAM SULLIVAN, MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT: All right. Counsel, could I see it sidebar to talk about this?

SANCHEZ: And it sounds like the judge, William F. Sullivan, has asked for a sidebar with the defense and prosecution. So, obviously cameras are going to move away from that area so that the public can't glean what is supposed to be a private conversation.

Let's go back to Mark O'Mara as we await more developments from court.

Mark, you were saying that the judge theoretically could send them in for more deliberations, but that potentially could have an impact on the strength of the verdict pending a future appeal.

O'MARA: Yes, because that's the concern is that, look, the -- the dynamite charge is to be there and say, look, everyone, look at your weakest position and look at the other side's best position. It's also there, if there is one juror who is very hesitant, it's almost a -- a focus on that one juror to listen to the other 10 or 11 that might be there.

The problem with it is that if the 35 hours of deliberations and being pushed in effect, not suggested, but now pushed, I think it's a -- going to be really suspect because two weeks from now could be that some juror is going to come in and say, I was talked into it by the other 10 or 11 jurors because that really wasn't my verdict, but they -- they talked me into it.

So, at this point, unfortunately they just got to let it go. And if the state decides to go forward, let them try and do it again.

SANCHEZ: Let's not put the cart before the horse. It is possible that they have reached some sort of unanimous verdict, but indications are not trending in that direction, right? So, let's go to Jean Casarez who's been hearing from our reporters in the room about what it looks like inside the courtroom.

Jean, the judge here asking for a sidebar. Do we have any idea, any indication from some of the movement in the room what it's about?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The feel. The feel is tense, we're being told, in that courtroom. It is still, it is quiet, but the -- the just immensity of the emotions of silence just reek in that courtroom. The defendant, Lindsay Clancy, staring straight ahead, not talking with her attorney, no facial expressions, no movement of her upper torso, just staring straight ahead.

Kevin Reddington at the defense table, reading something on his desk. And Father Bob, who is sitting with -- he's a Catholic priest, he is sitting with the family. His eyes are shut in that courtroom right now.

SANCHEZ: Jean, thank you so much. Let's go to Areva Martin.

Because, Areva, there are certain things that both sides, the prosecution and -- and the defense, could glean from a mistrial if this winds up going in that direction. How does it affect the calculus of -- of what comes next, whatever they learn from the jury?

AREVA MARTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, one of the things is, is this a case that maybe can be submitted to a plea deal? It -- are the prosecutors willing to consider negotiating with Clancy's legal team about some kind of plea, whether it's a manslaughter plea, but given the severity of the crimes that were committed or the acts that were committed, no doubt the prosecution would be looking for some jail time. I doubt if they would agree to any ending of this process that does not involve Clancy spending some time in jail.

We've heard the defense attorney say, look, the ball is in the court of the prosecutor. If they want to talk plea, we are more than open to do so. But we've heard this prosecutor, Boris, say that if it is a mistrial, they are committed to retrying this case. And both sides now know what the arguments are. They know what the witnesses are. They know what the exhibits are. They know the theories that will be presented if there is a second trial.

We just saw it on the -- another high profile Massachusetts case that ended in a mistrial. And then the case was tried again and the defendant ended up acquitted in that case. I think that's the Karen Read case.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

MARTIN: So, a second trial don't always go well for prosecutors.

SANCHEZ: Mark, what -- what is the likelihood of a plea deal in case there is a mistrial?

O'MARA: Well, you know, it really should be, because let's face it, they -- the state has put on their best case ever. And if that's true, because they were ready and they could not convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt which is their standard, then maybe they shouldn't even try a second time.

[15:05:05]

Maybe it is a case that screams out for some type of resolution.

And let's face it, wherever you fall on the spectrum of guilt versus insanity, this is a horrible tragedy case. And now we know a lot more about what Ms. Clancy was going through with all the expert testimony. And there is a lot of people out there who are now realizing the depth of a postpartum depression and how it might have a negative impact on a mom. So, maybe we can all learn a lesson from this and that Ms. Clancy doesn't have to pay the ultimate price for having sort of been trying to get help but failing or the system failing her in doing so.

SANCHEZ: And let's go back out to Jean Casarez. Jean, what are our reporters in the room sharing with you about what it looks like behind closed doors?

CASAREZ: They're still at sidebar, the attorneys and the judge. The judge has a lot of papers that he is talking to the attorneys about. Kevin Reddington has his papers and he is very strongly talking to the judge, head movements up and down as he's doing that. He's turning around, he is pointing at Lindsay Clancy in the courtroom and then he's turning back to the judge and he keeps talking.

He's very animated, very emotional with his movements, you could say. We don't know what the topic is, but we do know that they -- the -- and the prosecutors are right there too -- they are very aggressively talking about something that will, I think, be set in open court.

SANCHEZ: We are expecting that.

CASAREZ: All right, I've got some more information here, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Yes. Jean, please.

CASAREZ: Boris, I've got more. Kevin Reddington just slammed his hand down on the judge's area right there -- very, very animated. Absolutely doesn't appear to be happy at this point, the defense attorney. They're going back and forth at this point. We -- there's not -- it's not audible because this is a sidebar, but this is something we have not seen during this trial. They have been civil sidebars. The judge talks to the attorneys, they go back to the table, then court becomes on the record with the gallery. This is far different than what we've seen before.

SANCHEZ: Wow, a -- a very bright show of emotion there, it sounds like.

CASAREZ: Everyone is frustrated out there. Extremely frustrated.

SANCHEZ: Yes. Jean, please keep us posted on what you're hearing.

Let's go to Areva Martin for some reaction.

Areva, when you hear that defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, reacted that way, slamming his hand on the bench, what is -- how -- how do you read that?

MARTIN: Well, I can imagine if you are the defense attorney, you are ready for this judge to declare a mistrial. You're ready to say, look, 35 hours, nothing is going to change. And to continue to force these jurors to deliberate is, in effect, coercing them. And that's not what our jury system should be, and that's not what jurors should be. They shouldn't be coerced into a unanimous decision.

So, I can only imagine that the defense attorney is trying to speed up this process of the judge declaring a mistrial. That would be the ultimate best outcome for him if he's not going to get an outright not guilty verdict, which there's no indication that that's going to happen at this point. So, again, as Jean said, not clear what they're talking about, but we can only imagine that's what the defense attorney is pushing for.

SANCHEZ: Yes, I'm sure we'll -- we'll soon find out what has animated the defense attorney this way.

Mark, a moment ago, you were saying that it may not be a great idea for Judge Sullivan to ask the jury to continue deliberating after 34 -- almost 35 hours. What would factor in to the judge potentially saying, you know what, I think they might actually be close. What would lead him to ask them to continue?

O'MARA: So, here's, you know, we love reading tea leaves that we shouldn't until we hear what that note says, but I'm now curious whether or not that note to the judge is telling the judge there is just one juror who's not listening. There's one ...

SANCHEZ: Wow.

O'MARA: ... juror -- again, I'm -- this is all guesswork. There's one juror who's getting in our way. Good or bad, we don't know the result because when you get a reaction from a defense attorney like that, and they're hearing that, the reaction is based upon the fact that now the judge may be deciding to go back in, give them yet a third charge, dynamite charge, give them even more time to try and wear down that minority, maybe as little as one, juror who's getting -- quote, "getting in the way of a verdict," and the defense attorney does not want that to happen because we know what's going to happen.

That juror is going to be talked to, is he or she's going to come out of the woodwork. We're going to have a real question on the appeal as to whether or not it's a legitimate legal verdict if it was based upon duress, which is now seemingly maybe on the table.

SANCHEZ: Wow. Let's go back to Jean Casarez because, Jean, you've got some new information.

CASAREZ: Yes, I do. The -- the acrimony between the judge and Kevin Reddington, the defense attorney, escalating.

[15:10:03]

Kevin Reddington talking to a point that you can almost, in the gallery, hear what he's saying. He throws the papers down on the bench. He walks away to the defense attorney -- Reddington does. Reddington then sits with his client, Lindsay Clancy, and their heads are almost together.

He's bringing Clancy to the bench right now. Lindsay Clancy is being wheeled up to the bench, leaving her in her chair, obviously, being wheeled up. At the same time that all of this is going on, the assistant district attorney has been nodding in agreement with the judge. We have to know that also.

The judge is now talking to Lindsay Clancy one-on-one with the attorneys present up at the bench.

SANCHEZ: Wow. Areva Martin, what -- under what circumstance would a defendant be brought up to speak one-on-one with a judge?

MARTIN: Yes, unusual turn of events. And I -- I think what Mark said is -- is, again, guesswork, but could be true. Could be the judge making some decision about continuing to deliberate or forcing the jurors to continue to deliberate if that note suggests that they may be closed but for one or two jurors holding out in terms of their decision-making. But I have grave concerns about the territory that this case is now evolving into and the issues that could be for appeals in terms of how this judge is handling this jury.

Again, 35 hours of deliberation, what possibly could have changed in the last couple of hours. Not likely that much other than, again, one or two folks who are just not on board with the majority and those folks now being coerced, being forced to change their opinions.

SANCHEZ: I want to get your thoughts on Lindsay Clancy being brought up to speak to the judge in just a moment, Mark. But we have more color now from Jean Casarez. Jean, what are you hearing?

CASAREZ: So, the judge has been speaking to Lindsay Clancy. She is still up at the bench, Kevin Reddington close to her, touching her shoulders. But at the same time, the assistant district attorney that is listening to that conversation, that the judge is saying to Lindsay Clancy, the assistant district attorney is agreeing with the judge. Whatever the judge is saying, the assistant DA is in agreeance with it, the defense vehemently against it.

SANCHEZ: Mark, how do you read this high drama happening in the -- in the courtroom right now?

O'MARA: So, again, it's -- it's pure supposition, but I am now wondering, and it's just difficult for a judge to do it. Maybe not the best way to handle it. What if that judge is (INAUDIBLE) ...

SANCHEZ: Mark -- Mark, just -- just hold on one moment. Mark, I'm sorry to interrupt, but we've just learned that the judge has now brought one juror to the bench and is now speaking to that juror. What does that tell you, Mark?

O'MARA: This is all very dangerous territory for a judge. I think he was first talking to Clancy to say, do you really want a mistrial? Don't you want this over, good or bad today? Could be saying things like that to try and talk her into not having a mistrial, even if the defense attorney is arguing for it, which obviously he would and should be.

Now, I'm even more concerned because now they're bringing in, seemingly, the one recalcitrant juror, guesswork again, to be talked to specifically by a judge. That type of pressure on one juror, I'm not kidding, I have not heard of a juror being taken out of deliberations to be spoken to by a judge, and I've done this for a while, and it's extraordinarily dangerous because the pressure of a judge telling you, in effect, what to do is going to come back to haunt the process, the judge, and any verdict.

SANCHEZ: You mentioned that it would a challenge ...

O'MARA: Any verdict of guilt.

SANCHEZ: Right, you imagine that would be challenged, any guilty verdict on -- on appeal. We understand that that juror, after speaking with Judge Sullivan, nodded and then left the courtroom. Let's go back to Jean Casarez because she's in -- in touch with the CNN reporters that are in -- in the room.

Jean, what -- what are they sharing with you?

CASAREZ: All right, what we're learning is the first jurors, as you just said, Boris, was brought into the courtroom. One juror, first juror, went up to the -- to the bench where Lindsay Clancy is right there, along with the attorneys, sworn in, that juror asked a question by the judge, the juror answered it, the juror left.

A second juror has just come into the courtroom, same scenario, sworn in, judge asked her a question or he a question, answers it, and then leaves. So, at this point, it appears as though just those two jurors came in to speak to the attorneys and the judge. But now the jury is getting involved in this. The judge is bringing them in.

All right, now they're on the fourth juror, so they are going through the jurors right now, bringing them in one at a time. A foot from Lindsay Clancy ...

SANCHEZ: Yes. CASAREZ: ... so close to the defendant, asking them a question, but swearing them in, making sure that this is under oath, what they are saying, the question and the answer that they get is under oath with these jurors.

[15:15:09]

SANCHEZ: Wow. Jean, thank you so much for that.

So, this paints, Areva and Mark, a -- a bit of a different picture. It's not just one juror that the judge is conferring with, it seems to be at least four of them potentially more -- now five.

Areva, why would the judge be going juror by juror, swearing them in, especially with Lindsay Clancy seemingly arms distance from them?

MARTIN: Yes, we can only assume at this point, Boris, that the judge is trying to confirm that these jurors cannot reach a unanimous agreement before he declares a mistrial. He's asking each of them, have you done your best? Have you considered every position that has been presented? And, you know, have you come to a decision based on the evidence and the legal charge that was presented to them? I think the judge is just trying to cover his bases.

Obviously, he does not want this case to end in a mistrial. They've invested so much time, court time, effort and energy into this. He wants a conclusion today. Ideally, that's what the judge would want. So, I presume he's asking these jurors before he declares this mistrial, just verifying that there's no way additional time would cause them to get to a different outcome.

SANCHEZ: The judge is now conferring with a sixth juror. Mark, your thoughts, I see you shaking your head.

O'MARA: Well, I'm sorry. It's just very dangerous territory that he is in. The whole purpose of the dynamite charge is to give it to them as a whole, to not segregate them out, to not blame anybody for the process, to not do anything that's going to impact on them acting as a whole. That's why you bring them in one time, maybe twice as in this case and do it. I'm very concerned.

I guess what he is doing is making sure, one, that they still want to deliberate if that's the decision. Still dangerous territory to do it one at a time. Two, he may be arguing, is your verdict or your decision in cement not going to change? Not answering what it is, just not going to change. Again, dangerous territory because he's not supposed to ask them individually, but it's the only thing that makes sense.

And the only thing that's going to salvage the way he did this from appellate review is if he is about to declare a mistrial. If they go back and deliberate longer, he's on very dangerous territory for a verdict, no matter what -- if it's a guilty verdict.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

O'MARA: Can't appeal it in acquittal, but ...

SANCHEZ: Right.

O'MARA: ... very dangerous territory. He needs to be extraordinarily careful. I know he's frustrated with weeks of work. This is not the way to handle the inefficiencies of having to have a second trial.

SANCHEZ: He's now gone through eight jurors.

Areva, your thoughts to what Mark was saying about this being potentially dangerous, even if the jurors do want to deliberate more, the way that the judge is handling this, is it fair to say that this is unorthodox?

MARTIN: Absolutely, I agree with Mark a hundred percent. The -- the jury -- juror should be spoken to as a group. The charge should be given to the jurors as a group. Anytime an individual juror has to speak directly to a judge, of course, they're going to feel pressure. Just the reverence that jurors have for judges, just the power dynamic in that conversation is going to cause some jurors to feel pressure, no matter what the question is.

If the question is, we want to continue deliberating, there's going to be pressure to answer in a certain way. If the question is, can you change your mind or are you sure you're not going to change your mind? It doesn't really matter what the question is. The fact that it's being asked of the jurors one by one by the judge is by definition creating pressure on them. That is, I agree with Mark, very problematic from an appeal standpoint.

I'm not clear what -- so two things can happen. Either this judge is going to send them all back to deliberate more, or he's going to determine that they're endlessly deadlocked and he's going to declare a mistrial. But either way, handling it in the fashion that we're hearing from jean and the reporters is not the way this is typically done.

SANCHEZ: And what strikes me, Mark, is that this is happening as -- as he's now gone through nine jurors with Lindsay Clancy right there.

O'MARA: Yes. It's -- it's just so awkward. The whole point of keeping a juror inviolate -- jury, not individual jurors -- inviolate as a group is that exact dynamic. That's why the charge is given to all of them. That's why the question comes from one to -- to the judge. That's why they're never talked about individually. And yet we now have, and I'm not exaggerating when I say, brand new procedural law being made by this one judge as to how to handle individual jurors. And I don't know what he has planned, but the idea that Ms. Clancy is two, three feet away, I -- I think what happened was what we talked about, potentially, right?

[15:20:02]

The -- the defense attorney obviously wants a mistrial and we're on the grounds of that. Maybe the judge is trying to make sure to Ms. Clancy, are you sure you want to do this all again? Or you just want to wait to say, maybe it's an acquittal, maybe it's a conviction, but this is your day in court. Maybe he can drag her up there for that, and he did, seemingly.

Having her up there for this individual inquiry of the jury -- of the jurors is just strange. And again, isn't that pressure on a jury, on the juror who's going to sit there two feet away from the defendant and say, yes, I want to still work. No, I don't want to still work.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

O'MARA: She should have been brought back to the table and the procedure, the decorum of the procedure of inquiring a juror individually should have been maintained much differently. In my opinion, no disrespect for the court, this is unique territory for him to be in as well as us talking about it, but you have to be so, so careful because an appellate court is going to have to review as to whether or not this was an enough of abuse ...

SANCHEZ: Right.

O'MARA: ... of discretion that the conviction can't stand.

SANCHEZ: Yes. Let's go back to Jean Casarez.

Jean, I -- I believe that the judge has now gone through all of the jurors or is in the process now of speaking to the 12th juror, is that correct?

CASAREZ: Yes, it just concluded. So, the judge went through all 12 jurors. It was very short, it was very brief. There was an answer from each and every juror and that was it. So, there was not an extended conversation at all. At this point right now, the assistant district attorney that gave the closing arguments is talking with the judge, nodding up and down in agreement with what the judge is saying.

Mr. Reddington just reached over and he grabbed the stack of papers off the bench. He is still standing directly behind Lindsay Clancy holding onto her chair up at the bench.

And as these jurors were brought in, our reporter in the courtroom, our producer, Nicki Brown, said that -- that -- that Lindsay Clancy was right in the thick of it. She was right there as the jurors were being brought in and -- and questioned by the judge, but very short. It was not questioning. It was just like one answer, that's it, and they go back.

So, now we have to see what happens. This -- if this will go into a proceeding that is on the record in open court, so we all can hear exactly what the situation is.

SANCHEZ: Yes, we're -- we are anticipating that we will see ...

CASAREZ: Reddington is standing with his arms crossed. He is not happy.

SANCHEZ: Let's -- let's go back to footage from inside the courtroom. You see Lindsay Clancy being wheeled back to the defense table.

CASAREZ: The parties of attorney (INAUDIBLE) tables right now.

SANCHEZ: Let's go ahead and listen in.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Court, all rise. Jurors entering.

[15:25:00]

The Court is now in session. Be seated.

CLERK: Your Honor, for the purpose of the record, present before the court are 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.

CLERK: You're welcome.

SULLIVAN: Good afternoon, everyone. I just wanted to go over a couple of things this afternoon. First off, I want to remind you that you are required to follow my instructions on the law as I gave them to you, all right? I also want to, at this point, go over the instruction that I gave you about reasonable doubt, all right?

And so, reasonable doubt, the burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges made against her. What is proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Well, the term is often used and probably pretty well understood, though it's not easily defined.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, for everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. A charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after you've compared and considered all of the evidence, you have in your minds an abiding conviction to a moral certainty that the charge is true.

When we refer to moral certainty, we mean the highest degree of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs based solely on the evidence that has been put before you in this case. I've told you that every person is presumed to be innocent until they are proved guilty and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.

If you evaluate all the evidence and you still have a reasonable doubt remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be acquitted. It's not enough for the Commonwealth to establish a probability, even a strong probability, that the defendant is more likely to be guilty than not guilty. That is not enough.

Instead, the evidence must convince you of the defendant's guilt to a reasonable and moral certainty, a certainty that convinces your understanding and satisfies your reason and judgment as jurors who are sworn to act conscientiously on the evidence. This is what we mean by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

All right, and with that, I'm going to ask you to resume your deliberations.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Court, all rise, please. Jurors, this way.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This way.

SANCHEZ: A stunning moment in the courtroom in Plymouth -- Plymouth, Massachusetts as the judge there, William Sullivan, ordering the jury to continue deliberations, past now what are some 35 hours of discussions in attempting to reach a unanimous verdict over the fate of Lindsay Clancy, who strangled her three children, the state arguing that she planned to do so, her defense arguing that she was in the throes of postpartum psychosis and should not be held criminally responsible. Let's bring in Areva Martin, Jean Casarez and Mark O'Mara.

Mark, first to you, really a -- a stunning turn of events here as we saw the jury send a note to the judge, no clarity on exactly what it said, but the judge conferring with each individual juror with Lindsay Clancy at the bench alongside them, and then giving them instructions about reasonable doubt, saying that it is on the Commonwealth. The burden of proof is on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but that reasonable doubt does not mean proof without any possible doubt. It requires a moral certainty. What did you make of -- of those instructions, Mark?

O'MARA: Again, it's interesting. I'd love to read the note, but I have to think the note had maybe two parts here. One, the problem that they have a real difficult time making a decision. And then also uncertain, now we're certain that they also wanted to have that instruction written. And it's funny because in my state where I practice, normally you get the written rules or -- or procedures that go back with you, obviously not here, but also they would just review them.

So, the fact that he had to give them to him, what relevance does that have? Presumably they're now going to go back to the one or two recalcitrant jurors and say, it's not a possible doubt. It's not every doubt. We just have to be sort of certain, right? That's sort of what that says. And I'm now wondering if either they're going to come back having talked to that one or two jurors into it and come back with a verdict of guilty, or if they're finally going to tell the judge one last time, we're not getting close to a verdict and they have to be let go on at that point.

[15:30:05]

SANCHEZ: Areva, walk us through what the judge is describing as a ...