At about 10:15 Tuesday morning, on the fourth day of deliberations, the jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial sent Judge William Sullivan a note.
“After many hours of deliberation, we are unable to come to a unanimous decision.”
Judge Sullivan sent them back to keep working. He cited the length of the trial, more than eighty witnesses and over three hundred exhibits, and reminded them of his earlier instructions.
What he did not do is the most significant thing that happened in that courtroom Tuesday.
He did not give the deadlock charge
Massachusetts has a specific instruction for a jury that reports it cannot agree. It is called the Tuey-Rodriquez charge, and it asks jurors to reconsider with deference to one another while making clear that no juror should abandon a conscientious conviction just to reach agreement.
The Supreme Judicial Court has called it “the orthodox approach to dealing with a deadlocked jury.”
Sullivan did not give it. He told them to continue deliberating, and pointed to the size of the case.
That was a choice, and it is worth understanding why a judge makes it.
A jury saying it is deadlocked does not make it deadlocked
The decision about when deliberations have been “due and thorough” belongs to the judge, not the jury. Courts weigh the complexity of the case, the number of contested issues, and how long the jury has actually worked relative to how long the trial took.
This jury has deliberated somewhere in the range of seventeen to nineteen hours. The trial ran more than three weeks. There are three separate verdict slips, one for each child, with five options on each, and unanimity is required on all three independently.
Set against eighty witnesses and three hundred exhibits, four days is not a long time. Judges routinely decline to accept a first report of deadlock on far thinner records. In one Massachusetts case, a jury sent a note two hours into deliberations announcing a six to six split, and the judge declined to find them hung. The Appeals Court affirmed.
Why hold the charge back
Two reasons, and they both cut the same way.
The charge is a finite resource. It is given once. A judge who spends it on the first note has nothing left if the jury reports deadlock again, other than declaring a mistrial. Sending them back with a neutral reminder preserves the stronger tool for a moment when it is actually needed.
Giving it too early is itself a risk. Massachusetts appellate courts reverse convictions where a judge pushed a jury too hard. The rule is that a judge “must avoid language that may coerce the jury into reaching a verdict.” In one case the Appeals Court found an abuse of discretion where a judge told jurors the case had to be decided at some point and mentioned the court’s crowded calendar; the jury convicted within thirty minutes of returning.
A deadlock instruction delivered at the first sign of difficulty, in a case this closely watched, would hand the defense an appellate issue for free. Sullivan avoided that.
It is also worth noting what a neutral instruction communicates. Telling jurors to keep going and reminding them of the scale of the evidence is a message about effort, not about outcome. The Tuey-Rodriquez charge, by contrast, explicitly asks jurors in the minority to reconsider, which is exactly why its wording gets scrutinized on appeal.
What happens next
Three paths from here.
They reach a verdict. Notes reporting deadlock are common and frequently precede a verdict. A jury that has told the judge it is stuck and been sent back often finds a way through, which is the entire premise of the practice.
They report deadlock again. That is when the Tuey-Rodriquez charge is most likely to appear. If Sullivan gives it, expect the wording to be careful and expect it to be read closely by both sides, because it will be an appellate issue if there is a conviction.
He declares a mistrial. If the jury remains unable to agree after a genuine opportunity, the judge declares a mistrial on the counts they cannot resolve.
A mistrial is not an acquittal. Double jeopardy does not bar a retrial, and the Commonwealth would be free to try the case again. Any count the jury does resolve stands on its own, so a partial verdict is possible.
What the note does and does not tell us
It confirms the jury is divided, and that is all it confirms.
It does not say on which count or counts. It does not say how the split runs, and juries are not asked to disclose that. It does not indicate whether the division is between guilt and not criminally responsible, between degrees of murder, or something else entirely.
A division is not surprising here. The central question is whether Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible when she killed her children, the parties put on competing psychiatric experts, and the burden on that issue rests with the Commonwealth once it is raised. Reasonable jurors can look at the same expert testimony and land in different places, which is roughly what the system expects of them.
The only note before this one asked to see her prescription pill bottles and the knife.
This is a developing situation and we will update it. Status as of Tuesday afternoon, September 1, 2026.
Common questions
Did the Clancy jury say it was deadlocked?
Yes. On the morning of September 1, the jury sent a note reading, “After many hours of deliberation, we are unable to come to a unanimous decision.” Judge Sullivan directed them to continue deliberating.
Why didn’t the judge declare a mistrial?
Whether deliberations have been due and thorough is within the judge’s discretion. Given a trial with more than eighty witnesses and three hundred exhibits, and three verdict slips requiring separate unanimity, roughly seventeen to nineteen hours is not a long deliberation.
What is the Tuey-Rodriquez charge and was it given?
It is the Massachusetts instruction for a deadlocked jury, urging reconsideration without asking any juror to surrender a conscientious conviction. Judge Sullivan did not give it on September 1. He sent the jury back with a reminder of his earlier instructions.
If the jury hangs, does Lindsay Clancy go free?
No. A mistrial from a hung jury is not an acquittal, and double jeopardy does not prevent a retrial. The Commonwealth could try the case again.
Does the note reveal how the jury is split?
No. It does not identify the count, the numerical division, or the issue dividing them, and juries are not asked to disclose that.
Note text and courtroom detail from CNN, the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, CBS Boston, and Court TV reporting dated September 1, 2026. Legal framework from Commonwealth v. Rodriquez, 364 Mass. 87 (1973); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 443 Mass. 122 (2004); Commonwealth v. Carnes, 457 Mass. 812 (2010); and Commonwealth v. Firmin, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 62 (2016). General legal information, not legal advice.