Lindsay Clancy Mistrial Put On Hold As Defense Seeks Emergency Relief From Massachusetts Highest Court

Just as Judge William Sullivan was about to formally declare a mistrial, he paused the proceedings to allow Lindsay Clancy’s lawyers to ask the state’s top court for emergency relief. Here is what happened during that tense hour and what the defense was trying to achieve.

On Friday, September 4, 2026, the Plymouth Superior Court courtroom was poised for a dramatic moment. After more than a week of deliberations and three separate notes from the jury saying they could not reach a unanimous verdict, Judge William Sullivan announced that he intended to declare a mistrial in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy.

A mistrial would mean that the trial ended without a conviction or acquittal, leaving the possibility of a retrial open but effectively wiping out all the work of the current jury. For both the prosecution and the defense, it represented a major turning point in one of Massachusetts’ most closely watched criminal cases in recent years.

Defense Objects and Requests Emergency Stay

Just before the jury was called back into the courtroom to hear the mistrial announcement, Clancy’s lead attorney, Kevin Reddington, objected. He first argued that the judge should send the jurors back for further deliberations instead of ending the trial. When that argument did not change the judge’s mind, Reddington took a more unusual step: he asked for an hour to file an emergency stay with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), the state’s highest court.

Judge Sullivan agreed to pause the proceedings for one hour so that Reddington could seek what is known as extraordinary relief from a single SJC justice. During that time, the formal mistrial ruling would be put on hold, and the clock started ticking on a last-ditch effort to keep the trial alive or at least address a specific legal issue before the case was terminated.

What the Defense Asked the SJC to Do

The emergency motion filed by Clancy’s team, which included appellate attorney Dana Goldblatt, sought what is called a single-justice session of the SJC. Under Massachusetts law, a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court can hear certain emergency matters and grant temporary relief while the full court considers whether to take up the issue later.

In practical terms, the defense asked the SJC to:

• Order an inquiry into whether a specific holdout juror was able and willing to apply the law on reasonable doubt and criminal responsibility, particularly in light of Clancy’s claim of postpartum psychosis.
• Prohibit further deliberations with that juror unless and until the trial court conducted an individual examination (voir dire) to confirm that the juror could follow the judge’s instructions.
• Stay the mistrial ruling temporarily, so that these issues could be addressed before the trial was officially terminated.

The defense argued that there were indications that at least one juror might be biased or unwilling to properly apply the legal standards on mental illness and criminal responsibility. They contended that allowing the mistrial to proceed without addressing this issue could violate Clancy’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.

Emergency Hearing Before an SJC Justice

The emergency motion was assigned to Associate Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt of the SJC. A brief virtual hearing was held in the early afternoon, with attorneys for both the defense and the prosecution presenting their arguments.

Clancy’s lawyers emphasized the high stakes of the case and the potential constitutional issues involved. They argued that intervention was necessary to avoid what they called an “avoidable mistrial” in a case that had consumed enormous time, resources, and public attention, and to preserve the defendant’s right to a fair trial by unbiased jurors applying the law correctly.

Lindsay Clancy’s Husband Will Testify for Defense at Her Trial

Prosecutors, on the other hand, maintained that Judge Sullivan had acted within his discretion in moving toward a mistrial after three deadlock notes and extensive deliberations. They argued that there was no clear legal error requiring the state’s highest court to intervene before the mistrial was formally declared.

SJC Denies Emergency Relief

After hearing from both sides, Justice Wendlandt denied the emergency request for relief. The court’s decision meant that there would be no stay of the mistrial ruling and no order requiring further inquiry into the alleged juror issue at that stage.

With the SJC’s decision announced, Judge Sullivan called the court back into session around 2:20 p.m. and confirmed that the emergency appeal had been rejected. He then proceeded to formally declare a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy murder case and discharged the jurors.

The defense argued that intervention was necessary to avoid an avoidable mistrial in a case that is so time- and labor-intensive and that has captured so much public attention, and to preserve the defendant’s right to a fair trial by unbiased jurors applying the law.

Why the Mistrial Was “Put On Hold”

Legally, a mistrial does not become final until it is announced in open court with the jury present. That is why Judge Sullivan was able to pause the proceedings for an hour while the SJC considered the emergency motion. During that window, the mistrial was effectively pending but not yet official.

This procedural detail gave the defense a narrow but critical opportunity to seek relief from the highest court in the state. Had the SJC granted the stay, the mistrial could have been delayed or even prevented, at least temporarily, while the court examined the alleged juror issue more closely.

Once the SJC denied the request, however, that window closed. Judge Sullivan was free to finalize the mistrial, and the first trial of Lindsay Clancy officially ended without a verdict.

What Happens After the Mistrial

With the mistrial now in place, the case moves into a new phase. Judge Sullivan has indicated that he will hold a status hearing later in the month to discuss next steps. At that hearing, the court is expected to:

• Consider any pending motions from the defense or prosecution.
• Discuss the possibility and timing of a retrial, assuming prosecutors choose to proceed with one.
• Address logistical issues such as scheduling, discovery, and any changes in legal strategy following the deadlock.

For Lindsay Clancy, the mistrial means that the question of her criminal responsibility for the deaths of her three children remains legally unresolved. For the legal system, the dramatic sequence—third deadlock, emergency SJC motion, quick denial, and formal mistrial—underscores the intense pressures and complex legal issues surrounding one of Massachusetts’ most closely watched murder trials in recent years.