Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Judge Declares Mistrial in Lindsay Clancy Case. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired September 04, 2026 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

SULLIVAN: JUDGE WILLIAM SULLIVAN, PLYMOUTH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT: You will have the defendant brought in.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, please.

SULLIVAN: Counsel.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In the matter of Commonwealth v. Lindsay Clancy, the court declares a mistrial. All prior bail orders remain in full force in effect. This matter is continued to September 29, 2026, at 9 a.m. for status, trial assignment, and the Rule 25 motion in plenum.

SULLIVAN: All right. Counsel, thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Court, all rise.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: A very stunning moment in court there. Judge William Sullivan explaining to the court and to the public that the Massachusetts State Supreme Court has denied the defense's motion to have a stay, to stop the proceedings, to essentially stop the judge from declaring a mistrial in the case. The jurors were called back in.

Judge Sullivan made clear that he was grateful for their service. He said that they braced for their duties, citing Winston Churchill and World War II, saying that they should be proud of what they did and thanking them, but not before the defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, effectively said that his decision to declare a mistrial violated Lindsay Clancy's constitutional rights.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yes. And that was part of the argument that he made in his emergency request for relief, that it violated her constitutional rights under the U.S. Constitution and also under the Massachusetts Constitution, where he said that the jurors' reasoning reflects a bias against those who suffer from debilitating mental illness. But this request for relief clearly in the end appeared to be a hail Mary of sorts, right? And so we're going to see them back in court here in a few weeks. Let's bring in Jean Casarez to talk a little bit about what we just saw.

Despite the defense attorney's attempt to try to slow this down, here we are at this moment, a mistrial declared, Jean. JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That is right. It is official. A mistrial has been ordered by the judge.

And the question is, what about the jurors? I can tell you from our producer in the courtroom that when the judge said, I want to tell you all how proud I am of you, there was one female juror that was nodding her head no, as he was saying all that. Another female juror clenching her hands into fists as she was sitting on that chair.

All of the jurors were extremely tense. One female juror would not even open her eyes. Her eyes were gazed down in her lap.

Her eyes were closed as the judge continued to talk to them about what this final decision was. Another juror just nodded her head the entire time he was talking. And another female juror was pursing her lips.

We can now tell you the judge has left the bench. So this proceeding, this trial has now concluded. There was no verdict, but it was a mistrial that was ordered by Judge Sullivan.

SANCHEZ: Jean, please stand by. You're looking at live images outside the courthouse where we do anticipate that the attorneys in this case, who the judge also thanked, are going to appear in just moments. No doubt they will be asked questions by those reporters.

We'll see whether they choose to make public comment or not. We're with Areva Martin and Judge Diane Kiesel again. Thank you both for your patience and sticking around through this.

Judge, I wanted to go to you on this idea that Kevin Reddington put out there as he was requesting a reconsideration by the judge. He effectively made the case that this juror, this holdout, refuses to follow the law. What would it take for Reddington to prove that?

DIANE KIESEL, NEW YORK SUPREME COURT JUDGE (RETIRED): Well, he's got a problem here because the judge called each juror out individually. And this particular juror said under oath that the juror was capable of following the law. You open up a real Pandora's box if you then try and go behind what a juror under oath says based on what other jurors are saying is happening in the jury room.

I mean, what happens in the jury room is sacrosanct. And our law presumes that when you're saying something under oath, you're telling the truth. So I don't know how you would break this wall if you will.

KEILAR: Areva, what are the options here moving forward? I mean, aside from there being obviously this avenue that it appears you might want to explain to us, this 25b2 avenue that Kevin Reddington wants to pursue. But what are the possibilities?

Are we looking at a plea deal? Are we looking at a retrial? What are the chances that that might be more or less successful?

[14:35:00]

AREVA MARTIN, ATTORNEY: Well, that 25b2 motion is a post-verdict motion just asking the judge to make some reconsideration to reconsider some of the rulings that were made in the original trial. And ultimately, it's just a way to get a second trial, which the judge has already indicated is going to happen, presuming that the parties want to move forward with a second trial, not expecting there to be any rulings coming out of that motion that are different than what we've already heard from this judge.

The options at this point is another trial, which the defense attorney seemed really eager to move forward to, or a plea deal, which the defense attorney has said repeatedly that he's open, but that the ball is in the court of the prosecutors. I cannot imagine that the prosecution is going to enter into any plea deal that doesn't involve some kind of serious jail time. And I can't imagine that the defense would agree to a deal that did include jail time, particularly now that he believes that he has convinced 11 people that Lindsay Clancy should not be held criminally responsible for the death of her three children.

So I think we see a new trial in the fall, as the judge has suggested. That is the way that this matter gets concluded.

SANCHEZ: Areva, were you surprised at all that the state Supreme Court didn't side with the defense?

MARTIN: No, that was an extraordinary remedy. The judge had already done -- the trial judge had already done what a trial judge should do. And I hope the judge on the panel will agree with me.

The judge, Judge Sullivan, had already asked each individual juror under oath if they were capable of following the law. And they said yes. So I don't see what the appellate court couldn't really do anything else, perhaps other than to order the judge to have that kind of war order process, which had already taken place.

The reality in this case is, despite what the majority wanted, that one juror had an absolute right to not agree with them. And as long as that juror was following the law, following the instructions of the judge, he or she does not have to agree with the majority. This is not a process where the majority rules.

This is a process where each individual juror has an opportunity to weigh the evidence and to weigh the law and then to come to a decision based on what they agree -- or come to a decision based on what they have reviewed, what they have heard throughout the trial. And it doesn't always have to be what the majority agrees to.

KEILAR: Judge, in a retrial, who has the more difficult job, the prosecution or the defense?

KIESEL: I think it depends on what they learn from the jury that just got discharged. It would seem here that the prosecution has the tougher road to go down at this point, because from what we know, the jury was not ready to convict this woman. So they've got the harder trial.

It really depends on what you learn from speaking with the jurors. And I assume that both sides are going to extensively grill these jurors, which, by the way, have no obligation to speak to them. But if they choose to, they'll learn a lot from them.

SANCHEZ: Let's go back to Jean Casarez. Jean, Clancy herself has remained detained throughout these proceedings. Do we know what status she's going to be in now?

I assume she's going to continue being detained as this new trial moves forward.

CASAREZ: You know, that is such an interesting point, because there was not even a discussion whether there was going to be a retrial. The defense said, you know, let's try this again next week. I'm ready to go.

And the prosecution didn't have to say a word. So they knew what was going to happen. And the prosecution did not have to stand up and say we asked the court for her to remain in custody with a no bail because that is a given also.

So the focus was merely on a retrial and when it might happen. I want to tell you what Lindsay Clancy was doing at the moment that the mistrial was declared. She was actually turning to her defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, trying to say a few words to him right at the moment when the judge is announcing that mistrial.

Kevin Reddington looking in his lap. We don't believe he responded to her. But following the order of the mistrial, when court had ended, the family members of Lindsay Clancy, very solemn, extremely sad.

You could obviously tell in that courtroom, according to our producer, were leaning over the railing into the well of the courtroom to try to talk to Kevin Reddington at that moment.

KEILAR: Yes. Jean, it's just all of this to come to this.

[14:40:00]

You have to wonder with the prosecution having such a difficult road ahead, assuming this breakdown is, as it indicates, to be with the jury. This has become an evolved over the course of this trial to be something that has taken the attention of so many people across the country. You've covered many trials.

Can you imagine what a retrial will look like?

CASAREZ: You know, they'll learn. The prosecution will probably streamline their case a bit more. There are pivotal witnesses in this case, though.

They may not have all the experts that they had. They will have the best of the best. They may want more males on the jury than females if they can get it.

So it's sort of like a dress rehearsal, right? And the defense may also make some decisions and changes that they want to make in their cases. As they are trying to shift that burden back to the prosecution to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she lacked the criminality. The understanding of what she did was right or wrong, that she had no appreciation for that.

So it will take place, I believe, late fall. We'll see many times they want to do it as soon as possible. It doesn't work out that way because you've got a jury pool here that is living and breathing this trial. I think all over the Commonwealth, you would find that people know the facts.

People know the evidence. They know details as I talk with them, not just the fact that a trial is happening, but in-depth knowledge. So it may be more difficult at this point so soon to actually get a fair and impartial jury.

KEILAR: Yes, as you might expect, it would be. Jean, if you could stand by for us. We are waiting to see now that a mistrial has been declared by Judge William Sullivan in the Lindsay Clancy murder case if we are going to be hearing from an attorney here outside of the courthouse in Plymouth.

Stay with us. We'll be right back.

[14:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SULLIVAN: 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. 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. 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 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. 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 and on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: That was a message from Judge William Sullivan moments ago. Declaring a mistrial in the case of Lindsay Clancy. Now we're set to hear from her defense attorney, Kevin Reddington.

Who effectively argued -- actually, no. I believe this is the prosecution. So there is the district attorney and the assistant district attorney. Let's go ahead and listen in to their message.

TIM CRUZ, PLYMOUTH COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Everybody ready? Good afternoon, my name's Tim Cruz. I'm the Plymouth County District Attorney. I'm here today with Assistant DA Shanan Buckingham. And Assistant DA Jen Sprague.

I'm going to have a statement for you. And then I will answer some questions after. I do know that one of the questions that are out here right now regarding retrials.

I will let you know that there will be no decisions made today regarding that. I'm going to be meeting with our team. And we will address this case further at the appropriate time, in the context of an official court proceeding. So you're not getting an answer on that question today.

Today, however, I want to just say, I appreciate the hard work of the jury in this case. The jury obviously worked incredibly hard, stayed with that case for six and a half days. And that truly is people who understand the word of service as to what they did for our community. And I am grateful for that as we all should be.

But in the end, I understand that this has been an emotional trial for everybody.

[14:50:00]

It's emotional for the Duxbury community. It's even emotional for you members of the media. But in the end, I bring it all back to the child victims in this case, Cora, Dawson and Callan.

This was and has always been about getting justice for those three little babies. We're here at this courthouse today because those children are not. One of our many roles as prosecutors is seeking justice and giving voice to those who are tragically taken from us.

And one of our parts in this proceeding is to speak for the victims who are no longer here. And that is one of our most important functions. Our priority has always been to fight for Cora, for Dawson and for Callan.

The noise in this case may be louder than it is for other prosecutions in our county, but we have treated it the same as any other case. Children were murdered and it's our job to seek justice. I appreciate the fact that there are strong feelings and opinions tied to this case.

However, our job is to set aside our feelings and focus solely on the facts. The facts are Lindsey Clancy killed her three children and the evidence suggested to us that she was in control of her actions when she committed those homicides. Our court system is built to weigh our views with those of defense counsel and bear out whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty.

We did our part and I'm proud of the part of the work that we did in this prosecution. Because this case is not about a health care system or about how women are treated in it or what's diagnosis around the DSM or what there are not. Those are all important issues.

They stir up emotion and sometimes they stir up anger. This case, however, was about Lindsay Clancy and what she did on January 24th, 2023, and the cruel and calculated killing of three innocents. I understand that postpartum depression has impacted the lives of countless women and their families and I sympathize with their struggles.

The investigation of these heinous killings, however, did not establish that they were caused by such depression and based upon that assessment it was determined that the charges of first-degree murder were warranted and appropriate in these circumstances. Notwithstanding the undeniably important and delicate issues raised in this case, we proceed accordingly and consistent with the evidence and the law. I have led the Plymouth DA's office for a long time now and I have never been swayed to act a certain way or make certain decisions based upon public sentiment.

In this job, it is the facts ultimately decide how you act, not the opinions of observers several steps removed from our court proceedings. I would like to thank our prosecutors Jen Sprague and Shanan Buckingham, who are both mothers themselves and went home to their families after each long day in court. They embraced the most difficult trial assignment with utmost professionalism and always with the thoughts of Cora, Dawson, and Little Callen on their minds.

I'm proud of the work of our victim witness advocates who worked long and hard, Karen and Kelsey, and they lived and breathed this case from the very beginning. Unfortunately, the way they were vilified and portrayed on social media is disgusting to me. Threats to them and their families, their addresses being docked, being posted.

It's unfortunate that in today's society, potentially people placed at risk who are merely doing their jobs as prosecutors, professional women for the Commonwealth. And once again, I am proud of their professionalism under these very stressful and difficult times. I commend the Massachusetts State Police and the Duxbury Police and Fire.

From the moment that 911 call, they performed a thorough and complete investigation, and this was probably one of the most difficult crime scenes any of them has been to. And yet they did their jobs with professionalism and integrity. This is a case about three children who died a violent and horrific death at the hands of the person who showed them the most.

This isn't rumor or speculation. This isn't guesswork.

[14:55:00]

You know, speaking generally, we live in a great country, and we have the best criminal justice system in the world if you ask me. And that's what you start today. You start over the course of the last few weeks.

Prosecutors in defense, dealing in court, and ultimately having individuals make their determinations, jurors making their determinations. And the defendants that are charged with crimes in our country have an awful lot of rights. And you know what?

They should. They should have the rights that are set forth in our United States Constitution. And here in Massachusetts, I had a mass declaration of rights.

They should have those. But also speaking in the world that we live today, and all too often, criminals are being treated as victims and the real victims are invisible. It is our job to make sure that the victims are not invisible, to make sure that they're not forgotten, and to make sure that we stand for them in the way that we seek justice.

And that's what I think we've done in this case. As I said, this day of this trial has been really emotional for everybody. I am a father and a grandfather, and I cannot imagine the hell this entire family has lived through.

I remind myself that this is and has been and always will be about getting justice and making sure that we do not forget Cora Dawson a little count. Having said that, I'll answer questions that I think that I can. One at a time, please.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think a new jury would make a decision --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) whether there'll be another trial? You get to make that decision. Why aren't you saying right now that you will retrial?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You only cared when the kids were dead. Why don't you care about the mother?

CRUZ: Listen, I told you my decision on that already. I'll be making that decision shortly.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do either of you want to say anything about the experience of trying this case, especially with families at home?

CRUZ: I think that we're going to just speak for them at this point. Like you said, it has been a long and difficult few weeks.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE)

CRUZ: I can't hear you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sorry. If this goes to a retrial, potentially, what do you expect to do in terms of finding an impartial jury given the current media coverage and social media?

CRUZ: You know, we'll do what we always do. You know, we will go through the court system, and we will do it what we have as to preemptory --

You know, I'm not going to stand out here and listen to this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: DA Cruze, you had 11 jurors that didn't necessarily belief you case. What do you say to those people who felt that the prosecution was insensitive?

CRUZ: Was what?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Insensitive.

CRUZ: Insensitive! Insensitive, is killing three children. Insensitive is ignoring those facts. We have an obligation to stand up for those people and seek justice and make sure the defendant gets justice and make sure they get justice.

So if people can't understand that I don't know how I can answer that question.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you feel like you might have to move court again?

CRUZ: Move courthouses? I don't know. I guess it's a short answer.

I think this is pretty far and renowned, so I'm not sure where we could go.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you couldn't prove the case to these 11 jurors, what would a new jury and how could that make the difference?

CRUZ: I'm sorry?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you couldn't prove the case to these 11 jurors who apparently did not believe that you proved the case, how can you prove it to others?

CRUZ: We don't know what they believe and what they didn't believe. Our job is to assess the facts and apply them to the law and make sure that we can go forward in a good faith fashion. And I think that we owe that to the people in our county and our community.

CRUZ: Thanks everybody.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE)

CRUZ: I can't hear you. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There's been a lot of online speculation about the thoroughness of the Massachusetts State Police investigation. Do you have any comment on that, on any of those rumors? Are you here to set anything straight?

CRUZ: I said they've done a good investigation, and I don't go online and read those stories.

[Speaker 3] I can't believe it was thorough. One more question. One more question.

My question is do you dispute the characterization by the defense that there was one holdup that was not considered not guilty? Do you dispute that?

CRUZ: I'm not here to dispute anything with the defense. I'm not here to talk about the defense. Yes, I'm here to talk about what's important in this case and what should be important to all of us and that's those three kids. Thanks very much.

KEILAR: All right, Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz, they're making his comments after a mistrial is declared in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. Let's go straight to Jean Casares, who is there and has been following this entire case.

He said something. This is, you know, this is a case that has garnered so much attention, Jean, and he addressed that. He said, though, this case ...

END