Lindsay Clancy murder trial: jury says with ‘heavy heart’ it cannot reach unanimous verdict – live updates

Jury returns to tell judge for a third time it cannot reach a verdict in case of Massachusetts woman who killed her children

• Judge set to declare mistrial in Lindsay Clancy case after jury deadlocked third time

We’re minutes away from getting the judge’s final decision on whether he will go ahead and declare a mistrial, as the hour he gave the defense to file an emergency appeal is almost over.

Here’s a quick recap of the trial, which has shocked, saddened and divided the country.

Closing arguments ended last Thursday in the trial of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother who admitted killing her three young children – Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months – in January 2023. Her attempt to kill herself after killing the children left her with spinal injuries that paralyzed her from the waist down. Clancy pleaded not guilty to three counts of first-degree murder due to lack of criminal responsibility, also known as an insanity defense. She faced life in prison if convicted. The tragic case has sparked a national conversation about the state of postpartum mental healthcare in the United States.

The charges up for consideration were first-degree murder, which involves “deliberate premeditation” or “extreme atrocity or cruelty” and is punishable by life in prison without the possibility of parole, or second-degree murder, without either of those conditions, punishable by life in prison with the possibility of parole. They also considered lesser manslaughter charges, which is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. If they had found Clancy not guilty, she could have spent the rest of her life in hospital, with the eventual possibility of release at a later time if the court determined she was not a danger to others.

Jurors began deliberating last Thursday on whether to accept her insanity defense, but, almost 40 hours on, they have now declared three times that they could not reach a unanimous decision. A jury note indicated that jurors were split 11-1 toward an acquittal but a holdout juror “has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict”. The prosecution argued this indicated a disagreement among jurors over how to weigh the evidence, while the defense argued the juror had “lied” when they swore to the judge to properly follow the law. But the judge ultimately declined to question the juror further.

After the jury declared today that, “with a heavy heart”, it still cannot “and will not be able to” reach a verdict, the judge said he intends to declare a mistrial. That has now been thrown into limbo after the defense asked for an emergency stay from Massachusetts’s highest court, for which the judge has allowed one hour. We will bring you the latest as that unfolds.

At the heart of what has been called America’s saddest murder trial is Clancy’s mental health following the birth of her third child. Her defense, led by attorney Kevin Reddington, argued that Clancy should not be held criminally responsible for killing her children because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis – a devastating condition estimated to affect around two women per 1,000 births. He called Clancy “a darn good mother” and argued that she received “lousy” medical care when she sought help for her deteriorating mental state. She was in “the depths of despair” when she killer her children, he argued, and was compelled to kill them and herself by a persistent male voice during a spell of psychosis.

Prosecutors, meanwhile, argued that Clancy “deliberately and meticulously” killed her children, and acted “intentionally, rationally, and swiftly”. Prosecutors acknowledged Clancy’s mental health struggles but in its closing statement argued that Clancy was a “functioning mom” who knew “right and wrong”. The prosecution pointed to the medical resources and treatment available to her, and also downplayed the severity of Clancy’s suicide attempt. She put a level of planning into the killings that indicates she was not psychotic, they argued.