Sep 4, 2026 · 54 min
Judge sends Clancy jury back as holdout dispute deepens
The Judge DEMANDS Lindsay Clancy Jury Keep Deliberating and Refuses to Dismiss One Holdout
The jury’s reported 11-to-1 split could determine whether the trial ends in a verdict, mistrial, or insanity acquittal.
- 1The judge refused to remove a disputed juror or reread the reasonable-doubt instruction, citing the jury’s independence.
- 2Analysts debate whether the reported 11-to-1 split favors acquittal or reflects one juror applying doubt incorrectly.
- 3A continued deadlock could produce a mistrial, while an insanity verdict would raise separate questions about confinement and public safety.
Don't miss
Judge William Sullivan refuses to remove the disputed holdout or issue a new reasonable-doubt instruction, sending the jury back to deliberate.
The brief
On day seven of deliberations, the defense asks Judge William Sullivan to address or remove a holdout juror accused of refusing to apply reasonable doubt correctly.
The judge declines to discharge the juror or reread the instruction, warning that intervention could invade the jury’s province, then sends the panel back to deliberate.
The clarified note reportedly describes an 11-to-1 split and a male juror who acknowledges doubt but will not apply it to the verdict; the direction of the split remains unclear.
Megyn Kelly, Matt Murphy, Phil Holloway, and Jonna Spilbor weigh whether the dispute signals an acquittal majority, a flawed standard, or simply unresolved disagreement.
The panel turns to the consequences of continued deadlock, including a mistrial and a possible not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity outcome that could place Clancy in a mental-health facility.
What was said on this episode
17 statements · 7 positive · 3 negative · 1 mixed · 6 neutral
The verdict may depend on one holdout juror.
“a verdict may now hinge on a single holdout juror”
Listen at 0:21
Massachusetts law limits a judge to sending a jury back twice.
“Massachusetts has a law that you can only a judge can only send a jury back twice”
Listen at 7:00
A continued holdout would probably result in a mistrial.
“if this person holds out for the rest of the day, I think that we're in a situation that we're probably going to see a mistrial declared”
Listen at 7:11
The judge is correctly refusing to remove the holdout juror.
“The judge is doing the right thing, though”
Listen at 22:02
Expressed doubt does not prove the juror favors the defense.
“the fact that a juror has expressed doubt means that that juror is wholeheartedly on Kevin Reddington's side”
Listen at 22:32
The juror may retain an individual interpretation of reasonable doubt.
“this juror is holding on to his own version of what a reasonable doubt is, having heard the standard. And he's allowed to do that.”
Listen at 35:19
A juror may properly deliberate without certainty that doubts are reasonable.
“if he's not certain that his doubts rise to the level of reasonable doubt, then he's absolutely you know deliberating the way we would want them to”
Listen at 35:34
The judge is better positioned than commentators to assess juror misconduct.
“I think the judge who individually questioned all 12 would know better than any of us”
Listen at 40:19
The DA should negotiate a settlement with the defense after an 11-to-1 deadlock.
“I've been advocating, if that happens, for the elected DA to sit down with Reddington and see if they can find some middle ground”
Listen at 42:40
Both prosecution and defense positions have substantial supporting arguments and facts.
“there's good arguments and good facts in support of both positions on this”
Listen at 43:25
The prosecution should accept an 11-person verdict after an 11-to-1 split.
“it would be smart for them to go ahead and tell the judge that they will accept an 11-person verdict”
Listen at 43:56
Clancy would probably remain hospitalized for a long time after an insanity acquittal.
“she probably would be there for a long time”
Listen at 45:19
A conviction is preferable to an insanity acquittal in this case.
“I am all for a conviction in this case”
Listen at 47:56
Massachusetts insanity law focuses on psychosis impairing moral understanding or behavioral control.
“was she so psychotic at the time that either she didn't understand right from wrong when she killed her kids or she knew right from wrong but could not conform her own actions to what is required under the law? That's Massachusetts law.”
Listen at 50:03
The jury will probably reach a verdict later that day.
“I think sometime later today we're going to get a verdict”
Listen at 52:23
If the holdout remains, the jury will likely report a hopeless deadlock.
“if they give it a few more hours and the person does not budge, they're likely to send the judge a note that says, look, now we are definitely hopelessly deadlocked”
Listen at 52:53
A hopeless deadlock would require the judge to declare a mistrial.
“would have no choice but to declare a mistrial”
Listen at 53:07
Statements are attributed to the speaker as said on the episode and reflect their view at the time, not PodLume's. They are not advice.