Sullivan told attorneys that he intended to declare a mistrial, bringing weeks of emotional testimony to an abrupt conclusion without a verdict.
Then Clancy’s defense team made one final move.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington asked Sullivan to hold off while he sought emergency intervention from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Rather than immediately dismissing the jury and formally declaring a mistrial, Sullivan agreed to give Reddington one hour to pursue the emergency appeal.
The decision temporarily kept the trial alive as the defense scrambled to convince the state’s highest court to intervene.
Jury Says It Cannot Reach A Verdict
The impasse came after an enormous amount of evidence was presented to the jury.
Jurors heard from 85 witnesses before beginning deliberations. They then spent more than 36 hours across seven days attempting to decide Clancy’s fate.
Friday’s announcement was not the jury’s first warning that the panel was stuck.
Jurors had already informed Sullivan on two previous occasions that they could not reach agreement. Each time, Sullivan sent them back to continue working toward a unanimous verdict.
By Friday, however, the judge appeared convinced that further deliberations were unlikely to break the stalemate.
The potential mistrial also raises an immediate question about what happens next.
Prosecutors had not announced whether they would retry Clancy if Sullivan ultimately declared a mistrial.
The Horrific Killings At The Center Of The Case
There is no dispute over who killed Clancy’s three children.
Clancy admitted killing 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan at the family’s home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, on January 24, 2023.
The central battle at trial was instead over Clancy’s criminal responsibility for those deaths.
Her defense argued that she was experiencing postpartum psychosis and had been heavily medicated at the time of the killings.
Reddington and the defense team maintained that her mental condition left her unable to be held criminally responsible under Massachusetts law.
Prosecutors, meanwhile, sought to establish criminal responsibility for the deaths.
That question ultimately landed in the hands of the 12 jurors — and after more than a week of deliberations, they still could not unanimously resolve it.
Signs Of An 11-1 Jury Split
The depth of the disagreement became dramatically clearer Thursday.
The jury foreperson sent Sullivan a note complaining that a single juror was allegedly refusing to properly apply the judge’s instructions concerning reasonable doubt.
The message suggested the panel could be divided 11-1.
That revelation put Sullivan in a difficult position.
Reddington asked the judge to address the apparent dispute among jurors, but the panel returned Friday morning with another message saying it remained unable to reach a unanimous verdict.
At that point, Sullivan indicated he was prepared to call it.
A mistrial appeared imminent.
Then Reddington asked for his emergency window to appeal.
Sullivan granted him one hour.
Clancy Trial Hangs In The Balance
The unusual last-minute maneuver means the case remains in legal limbo while the defense attempts to secure intervention from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
If the higher court declines to step in and Sullivan follows through on his stated intention, the proceedings could formally end in a mistrial.
Such an outcome would not amount to an acquittal or a guilty verdict. Instead, the current trial would conclude without the jury resolving the charges.
The next major question would then fall to prosecutors: whether to take the emotionally charged case before another jury.
After 85 witnesses, seven days of deliberations, three reports of deadlock and an apparent 11-1 division inside the jury room, the Clancy case has reached its most uncertain point yet.
For a trial already centered on extraordinarily difficult questions involving three children’s deaths, mental illness and criminal responsibility, the final chapter may now be decided not by the jury sitting in Plymouth County — but by Massachusetts’ highest court.
