Asked directly whether she believed Clancy was guilty of murder, Sheindlin focused on that distinction.
“There’s no question that she killed her children, the only question is—is there an excuse for it? Make up your own mind on that one.”
That question consumed weeks of testimony before a Massachusetts jury — and ultimately produced no verdict.
Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse, faces three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, who was eight months old.
The children were strangled with exercise bands on January 24, 2023. Clancy then jumped from a second-story window in an apparent suicide attempt, suffering severe spinal injuries that left her paralyzed.
Her defense maintained that Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis and therefore lacked criminal responsibility when she killed the children.
Prosecutors presented a dramatically different interpretation of the evidence, arguing that Clancy understood her actions and deliberately carried them out.
After a trial lasting nearly six weeks, jurors deliberated for seven days but were unable to reach the unanimous decision required under Massachusetts law. Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on September 4.
Subsequent reporting revealed an extraordinary 11-1 divide on the jury, with 11 jurors favoring a finding that Clancy was not criminally responsible and one juror refusing to join them. The holdout juror has since publicly defended his position, saying he had no doubts about Clancy’s criminal responsibility.
The deadlock leaves prosecutors with a major decision: bring the emotionally charged case before another jury or pursue a different resolution.
Sheindlin believes abandoning another trial carries consequences.
“I think there’s a danger in not retrying,” she said.
The former television judge stopped short of declaring what the ultimate verdict should be, emphasizing instead that the central dispute remains Clancy’s criminal responsibility.
Sheindlin was also asked about another explosive reaction to the case — this one from Republican South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace.
Mace recently called for Clancy to face public execution, a position that immediately generated controversy.
Sheindlin rejected that suggestion in a single word.
“Ridiculous.”
Massachusetts does not have the death penalty, making such a punishment unavailable in Clancy’s state prosecution regardless of the political debate surrounding the case.
Meanwhile, the legal battle is far from finished.
Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not announced whether his office will seek another first-degree murder trial. Following the mistrial, Cruz said prosecutors would not make an immediate decision and would address the future of the case through the court process. A hearing is scheduled for September 29.
Clancy’s defense team is also preparing to fight another prosecution.
Attorney Kevin Reddington has brought attorney Martin Weinberg onto the defense team as Clancy’s lawyers prepare a double-jeopardy challenge aimed at preventing prosecutors from trying the case again. That issue is expected to become part of the next round of courtroom litigation.
For now, however, the murder charges remain unresolved.
Clancy remains in custody at Tewksbury Hospital, a Massachusetts psychiatric facility, while prosecutors consider their next move.
The mistrial did not determine that Clancy was guilty. Nor did it acquit her. Instead, it left unanswered the question at the heart of the case: whether Clancy should be held criminally responsible for killing Cora, Dawson and Callan.
And as Sheindlin made clear, she believes that question may need to be put before another jury.
“I think there’s a danger in not retrying.”
