Deadlocked Jury Gets Explosive “Last Resort” Charge in Lindsay Clancy Triple Murder Trial — Will It Break the Impasse or Lead to Mistrial?
In a high-stakes moment that could decide the fate of a Massachusetts mother accused of killing her three young children, a Plymouth Superior Court judge delivered a rarely invoked special instruction to a deeply divided jury on Wednesday.
Judge William Sullivan issued the Tuey-Rodriguez charge after the panel of nine women and three men reported for the second consecutive day that they could not reach a unanimous verdict. The jury had already spent roughly 28 hours deliberating over five days in the closely watched trial of Lindsay Clancy, 36.
Clancy faces three counts of first-degree murder in the January 24, 2023, deaths of her children—Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months—at the family’s home in Duxbury. Prosecutors say she strangled them with exercise bands while her then-husband was briefly out of the house picking up takeout and medication, then attempted suicide by cutting her wrists and neck and jumping from a second-story window. The fall left her paralyzed from the waist down; she has attended the trial in a wheelchair.
The defense does not dispute that Clancy caused the deaths. Instead, attorneys argue she lacked criminal responsibility because she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder. They claim she experienced an auditory hallucination—a voice telling her that killing the children was the only way she could end her own life. Clancy had sought extensive mental health treatment in the months leading up to the tragedy, including psychiatric care, calls to a suicide hotline, and a short stay at a hospital.
Prosecutors counter that Clancy acted deliberately and with premeditation. They point to evidence that she arranged for her husband to leave the house, continued ordinary daily activities that day, and that no treating providers had diagnosed psychosis before the killings. The five-week trial featured more than 80 witnesses and over 300 exhibits, underscoring the complexity of the mental-state questions at the heart of the case.
The Tuey-Rodriguez charge, sometimes called a “dynamite charge,” is Massachusetts’ version of an instruction designed to encourage deadlocked jurors to keep working. Rooted in two state Supreme Judicial Court decisions from 1851 and 1973, it urges jurors to re-examine their positions with open minds and respect for one another’s views, while emphasizing that no one should surrender an honestly held belief simply to produce a verdict. It also reminds them that they are as competent as any future jury would be to decide the case.
Sullivan had already sent the jury back once after their first deadlock note on Tuesday. After the second note on Wednesday—“After much deliberation, we are still unable to come to a unanimous decision”—he delivered the formal charge and ordered them to resume. Jurors continued until 4 p.m. before being sent home, with deliberations set to continue into a sixth day.
Legal observers note that the instruction is typically a final procedural step before a judge considers declaring a mistrial. If the jury remains unable to agree, a hung jury would leave prosecutors to decide whether to retry the case. Possible verdicts include first-degree murder, lesser homicide charges, not guilty, or not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.
The outcome carries profound implications. A first-degree murder conviction would mean life without parole. A finding of lack of criminal responsibility would almost certainly result in commitment to a secure psychiatric facility with periodic reviews. As the jury returns for another day of closed-door discussion, the central question remains unresolved: whether Clancy’s mental state at the time of the killings absolves her of criminal responsibility for the deaths of her three children.
