A Massachusetts judge has declared a mistrial in the murder case of Lindsay Clancy after jurors, following about a week of deliberations, told the court they could not reach a unanimous decision on whether she should be held criminally liable for killing her three young children.

The decision leaves the case in limbo as the court weighs what happens next, with Clancy continuing to face the same murder charges. The trial, which attracted sustained national attention in the United States, has also been the subject of public comments by the US president.

Hung Jury Forces Mistrial

Judge Sullivan told jurors on Friday that they were deadlocked and dismissed them after weeks of testimony and nearly a week of deliberations. The jury had signalled on three separate occasions that it was unable to reach agreement.

A hung jury does not indicate that prosecutors failed to prove their case, nor does it mean the defendant is not guilty.

Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, made a final attempt to prevent the mistrial by seeking action over an alleged holdout juror. Judge Sullivan denied the request and ordered the jury to continue deliberating. About an hour later, jurors returned again saying they still could not reach a verdict.

Next Steps Set for 29 September

A hearing has been scheduled for 29 September, when prosecutors are expected to outline their next steps.

Options available to the prosecution include seeking a new trial or pursuing a plea agreement, including in relation to the strangulation of Clancy’s children: Cora, aged five, Dawson, aged three, and Callan, aged eight months, in their home in Massachusetts.

Meanwhile, the 36-year-old former nurse will remain detained on the same murder charges and continue to be held in the mental health facility where she is currently housed.

Defence Says Postpartum Psychosis

Clancy does not deny killing the children in 2023, but she pleaded not guilty to three counts of first-degree murder.

Her lawyers argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and should not be held criminally responsible. After the killings, Clancy cut herself with a knife and jumped from a second-story window in an attempt to take her own life, an injury that has left her paralysed.

As the jury deliberated, Reddington argued that a juror was not following instructions on the reasonable-doubt standard. Under US law, jurors must unanimously conclude that the prosecution has proved guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” before returning a guilty verdict.

Judge Sullivan rejected the bid to remove the juror and sent the panel back to deliberate.

Reddington then sought an emergency appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, asking the state’s highest court to order further deliberations and to require questioning of the jury over the alleged holdout. The high court denied the request.

High-Profile Case Draws National Attention

Prosecutors said the case would proceed subject to the court’s next steps. Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said there would be no decisions made on Friday and that he would meet with his legal team to determine whether to pursue another trial.

He told the court that prosecutors believed the evidence showed Clancy was in control of her actions when the homicides took place.

The trial was closely watched in the United States, with supporters and extensive media coverage outside court and livestreams of the proceedings. The case also prompted wider discussion around postpartum psychosis as family members and experts gave evidence over multiple days.

On Friday, US President Donald Trump referred to the case as a “horrible tragedy” and said he assumed there would be another trial.

Join the discussion?

5 September 2026

View full article

11vs1. That bloke will have nightmares of screaming liberal women saying "It wasn't her fault. She had post partum psychosis." I wonder what would have happened if it was 6 women and five men or six men and five women on the jury. No way it could be 9 men and 3 women. The activists would lose their minds. Oh wait! They already have. End of the day she murdered her three children.

The guy who was the holdout, not only resisted 11 peers, but also maintained their position after the judge brought each juror in for private questioning and delivered a formal re-instruction reminding them of their sworn oath to follow the law.

He must have a cast iron will!

19 hours ago, dinsdale said:

11vs1. That bloke will have nightmares of screaming liberal women saying "It wasn't her fault. She had post partum psychosis." I wonder what would have happened if it was 6 women and five men or six men and five women on the jury. No way it could be 9 men and 3 women. The activists would lose their minds. Oh wait! They already have. End of the day she murdered her three children.

Isn't it called being judged by a jury of peers.

Should have been all women because they are her peers.

5 minutes ago, FlorC said:

Isn't it called being judged by a jury of peers.

Should have been all women because they are her peers.

A jury of your peers does not mean the jurors will match your exact race, age, gender, religion, or background

The murdering of her children. How low can one go . Life is tough at times. Suck it up.

She’s liable but today’s liberal environment will support her. Unfortunately.

9 minutes ago, HolmesEquivelant said:

The murdering of her children. How low can one go . Life is tough at times. Suck it up.

She’s liable but today’s liberal environment will support her. Unfortunately.

But on the plus side, the Dems will no longer be able to offer female presidential candidates.

5 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

But on the plus side, the Dems will no longer be able to offer female presidential candidates.

They’ll try with AOC or Harris again. Either one , I hope they’re nominated so I/ we can watch them bite the dust again.

3 hours ago, dinsdale said:

A jury of your peers does not mean the jurors will match your exact race, age, gender, religion, or background

It should , others are not my peers.

Looking on the bright side of this vicious triple child murder by an insane woman, the husband has found love again with a medical professional who is vastly more attractive. So there is hope for any man, even when your woman is completely insane, a triple murderer, you can still move on and meet someone a little better.

7 hours ago, FlorC said:

Isn't it called being judged by a jury of peers.

Should have been all women because they are her peers.

I believe we need to have child molesters judged by a jury of child molesters . That would make the system fairer.

Initially, we had the case of Carmelo Anthony, where a significant portion of the Black community believed he acted in self-defense. Now, we see white women defending a person who strangled her three children. Strangling is an incredibly intimate act. Criminologists and advocates often describe it as a demonstration of absolute power and control, as it forces the victim to realize that the abuser controls their ability to breathe. This individual deserves to be imprisoned for the rest of her life.

10 hours ago, FlorC said:

Isn't it called being judged by a jury of peers.

Should have been all women because they are her peers.

So only women that have killed their children should be allowed on the jury?

These were nothing more than late term abortions.

3 hours ago, temuFarang said:

I believe we need to have child molesters judged by a jury of child molesters . That would make the system fairer.

I reacted to what Dinsdale said :

A jury of your peers does not mean the jurors will match your exact race, age, gender, religion, or background

I thought libs only supported killing unborn children?

Seems not. They're all fair game.

17 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I thought libs only supported killing unborn children?

Seems not. They're all fair game.

Kill 'em all, big or small

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Kill 'em all, big or small

The left sure pick their heroes.

Fentanyl addicts. Serial academic fraudsters. Child killers.

20 hours ago, dinsdale said:

A jury of your peers does not mean the jurors will match your exact race, age, gender, religion, or background

I don't think you've really understood the concept of 'peers'

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

I don't think you've really understood the concept of 'peers'

Seems it's you that don't understand.

AI Overview

A "jury of one's peers" is a group of ordinary, impartial citizens chosen from the local community to decide the verdict in a trial. [1, 2, 3]

What "Peer" Means

• Fellow citizens: A peer means an equal, which modern courts interpret as a random, representative cross-section of the local adult population.

• Not a demographic match: It does not mean the jury will share the defendant’s specific race, age, gender, religion, or background.

• Geographic basis: Jurors come from the same legal district or community where the court sits and the crime allegedly occurred. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

Seems it's you that don't understand.

AI Overview

A "jury of one's peers" is a group of ordinary, impartial citizens chosen from the local community to decide the verdict in a trial. [1, 2, 3]

What "Peer" Means

• Fellow citizens: A peer means an equal, which modern courts interpret as a random, representative cross-section of the local adult population.

• Not a demographic match: It does not mean the jury will share the defendant’s specific race, age, gender, religion, or background.

• Geographic basis: Jurors come from the same legal district or community where the court sits and the crime allegedly occurred. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

Leftie American definition,

Traditionally peers was to mean same class social, educational, racial and religion.

My peers are elderly white middle class male English Christians with a degree level education ..... nobody else.

Edited 8 hours ago8 hr by BritManToo

On 9/6/2026 at 9:59 AM, FlorC said:

Isn't it called being judged by a jury of peers.

Should have been all women because they are her peers.

Does that mean you think men should have only men on their jury? Or Whites only Whites, Blacks only Blacks, and Hispanics only Hispanics?

On 9/5/2026 at 2:13 PM, dinsdale said:

11vs1. That bloke will have nightmares of screaming liberal women saying "It wasn't her fault. She had post partum psychosis." I wonder what would have happened if it was 6 women and five men or six men and five women on the jury. No way it could be 9 men and 3 women. The activists would lose their minds. Oh wait! They already have. End of the day she murdered her three children.

I’ve yet to hear officially about how many jurors voted which way, guilty or not guilty, nor about their gender. Clancy’s lawyer has said it was one male juror, but I haven’t seen that authenticated. Have any of you?

Do some people see the slippery path you embark on when freeing an individual from personal responsibility?

Claiming "Not my fault (insert) made me do it.!!!

Would a guy charged with rape be acquitted using the defense angle "Not my fault, excess "testosterone" made me do it.

That guy defense would be laughed out of court as women produced rusty, blunt blades.

.

WWII death camp guards on trial for murder could not use "Only following orders" to absolve them from blame/responsibilities. Same slippery slope wanting clean hands while blaming hormones misses the point. At your hands you took away life.

3 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Does that mean you think men should have only men on their jury? Or Whites only Whites, Blacks only Blacks, and Hispanics only Hispanics?

It would certainly look from the evidence of this trial that the opposite would seem to be the best approach. A woman on trial? Only men in the jury. A man on trial? Only women in the jury.

In the Clancy case we clearly saw the 9 women siding with Clancy, with only a male lone juror holding out.

Women in their millions are going gaga over Clancy. We already had the first copy cat murder by another deranged female.

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/06/us/illinois-corie-walsh-child-death

They all want to feel the love of support for killing their children.

2 minutes ago, tmd5855 said:

Do some people see the slippery path you embark on when freeing an individual from personal responsibility?

Claiming "Not my fault (insert) made me do it.!!!

Would a guy charged with rape be acquitted using the defense angle "Not my fault, excess "testosterone" made me do it.

That guy defense would be laughed out of court as women produced rusty, blunt blades.

.

WWII death camp guards on trial for murder could not use "Only following orders" to absolve them from blame/responsibilities. Same slippery slope wanting clean hands while blaming hormones misses the point. At your hands you took away life.

We already had a guy recently, who was also crazy, and who killed his parents. Nick Reiner. No outpouring of support. No love. Just a crazy killer. But Clancy is a woman, so she's a lovable super star now.

Her Go Fund Me for her parents is now 3 MILLION USD!!! Who knew?? I shouldn't have become a lawyer. I should have had a sex change and killed my children. That's where the real money is.

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

In the Clancy case we clearly saw the 9 women siding with Clancy, with only a male lone juror holding out.

I ask again, do you or anyone else on this forum hear from a reliable source that there was only a single White male juror holding out?

Just now, WDSmart said:

I ask again, do you or anyone else on this forum hear from a reliable source that there was only a single White male juror holding out?

The lawyer for Clancy is on record for disclosing it was a male in his argument with judge. I saw the exchange with my own eyes.

Documented here as well:

“That juror told you that he would be able to apply the law to the facts as you asked him,” Reddington went on, revealing the juror’s gender for the first time.

https://nypost.com/2026/09/04/us-news/lindsay-clancy-defense-confirms-holdout-juror-is-male/

16 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I’ve yet to hear officially about how many jurors voted which way, guilty or not guilty, nor about their gender. Clancy’s lawyer has said it was one male juror, but I haven’t seen that authenticated. Have any of you?

Wow! 11-1. This has been very much in the news.

That juror better not be outed, or the crazies will kill him.

Saw an interesting item of news, a man asked his fiancee just before the wedding if she supported Lindsay Clancy. She said she strongly supported her. At which the man then cancelled the wedding.

This is the new test. Men need to ask "So that Clancy trial, huh, did you follow it?" and see if she is a crazed supporter of female derangement.