Skip to content 
The prosecution and defense presented sharply different interpretations of Clancy’s mental state, behavior, medical history, and actions surrounding the killings.
The defense maintained that Clancy’s psychiatric condition profoundly affected her ability to understand the nature and wrongfulness of what she was doing.
Prosecutors, meanwhile, argued that the evidence showed planning and awareness and that Clancy should be held criminally responsible.
Those competing arguments ultimately left the jury unable to reach a unanimous conclusion.
Why Was There a Mistrial?
A mistrial occurs when a trial ends without the jury reaching the required verdict.
Discover more
Legal
Get Photo Storage
Find Stock Photos
In Clancy’s case, the jury deliberated for several days before informing the judge that it could not reach a unanimous decision. Reports indicated that 11 jurors favored an insanity-based acquittal while one juror remained opposed. Because Massachusetts requires unanimity for a criminal verdict, the disagreement prevented the jury from resolving the case.
The situation became increasingly contentious during the final days of deliberations.
The defense argued that the holdout juror was not properly applying the judge’s instructions concerning reasonable doubt. Attorney Kevin Reddington asked Judge Sullivan to take additional action regarding the juror.
The judge declined to remove the juror.
Instead, Sullivan instructed the jury and attempted to address the deliberation problem within the limits of the court’s authority.Find Legal Help
Eventually, the jury remained deadlocked.
On September 4, the judge declared a mistrial after an emergency effort by Clancy’s defense to prevent that outcome was rejected by a justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
The mistrial therefore did not determine whether Clancy was guilty or not guilty.
It simply meant that the first jury could not complete the case.
The Defense Tried to End the Case
Following the mistrial, Clancy’s legal team pursued another strategy.
Rather than simply accepting the possibility of a second trial, the defense asked the judge to find Clancy not guilty.
The defense argued that the prosecution had not presented enough evidence to support a finding of criminal responsibility.
Attorney Kevin Reddington argued that the evidence did not establish that Clancy was criminally responsible for the killings and maintained that her severe psychiatric condition was central to understanding what happened.
Discover more
Blog
blog
Start Blogging
The defense’s position was particularly focused on the insanity issue.
Under the defense theory, Clancy’s postpartum psychosis was so severe that she could not properly understand the wrongfulness of her actions.
The prosecution disagreed.Consult Lawyers
That disagreement over mental responsibility has remained the defining issue in the case.
What Did the Judge Decide?
On October 1, Judge William Sullivan rejected the defense request.
The ruling means that the judge did not conclude that the prosecution’s evidence was legally insufficient to continue the case.
According to reporting from Reuters and The Associated Press, Sullivan determined that the prosecution had presented enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find Clancy criminally responsible.
This is an important legal distinction.
The judge did not rule that Clancy is guilty.
Discover more
Child
Find Family Lawyer
Play Trivia