Judge Refuses to Remove Holdout Juror in Lindsay Clancy Murder Trial

The jury in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial was sent home after a sixth day of deliberations following a dispute over a note from the foreperson indicating an 11-to-1 split and a holdout juror. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington argued that the dissenting juror was refusing to apply the law on reasonable doubt and asked the judge to remove that juror.

Judge William Sullivan responded by questioning each juror individually at a sidebar to confirm they could follow his legal instructions, then reread the reasonable-doubt guidance to the entire panel. He stated, "I don’t feel that it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations. I don’t feel it’s appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or 11."

Prosecutors did not object to the judge’s actions, noting that the deliberations are confidential and that the reinstruction was appropriate under state law. Former federal prosecutors Alyse Adamson and Neama Rahmani said a retrial would likely be pursued if the jury remains deadlocked, given the seriousness of the case involving three child deaths. Legal analyst Robert Hirschhorn expressed doubt that the holdout juror would be removed, describing such situations as rare.

Analysts Mark O’Mara and Areva Martin criticized Reddington’s request to dismiss the juror as unusually aggressive, while noting the difficulty jurors face in applying the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge’s decision to keep the juror and provide additional instruction leaves the case pending further deliberation.