Latest: What happens next: retrial, the one-year clock, and c. 123 s. 16
A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court denied Kevin Reddington’s emergency petition Friday afternoon. Minutes later, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case.
Seven days of deliberation, more than 30 hours, three notes, and no verdict on any of the three indictments.
The charges remain. District Attorney Timothy Cruz now decides whether to try the case again, and the parties return to court on September 29.
How the last two hours went
At 11:35 a.m., after the jury’s third note, Sullivan said he would declare a mistrial:
“I don’t feel I have any choice but to declare a mistrial at this time.”
The note that produced it:
“It is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to.”
Rather than declaring it immediately, Sullivan gave Reddington one hour to reach the SJC. That pause is the unusual part, and it is what preserved the defense’s position rather than forcing it into a later collateral attack.
Associate Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt heard the emergency petition by Zoom Friday afternoon, took oral argument, and denied it.
Sullivan then declared the mistrial and discharged the jury, telling them: “I understood how hard everybody worked in this case.”
A note on the justice who heard it. Wendlandt was also the single justice who, in July 2025, imposed the Lavallee protocol on the District Courts of Suffolk and Middlesex Counties during the bar advocate work stoppage, while declining to order higher pay rates. Emergency petitions of this kind are the single justice session’s ordinary work, and they are usually denied.
Why the defense fought a mistrial
This is the part that reads backwards until you know which way the jury was leaning.
Reddington told the court that one juror was preventing a not guilty verdict. On that account the other eleven favored acquittal, or a verdict of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.
From that position a mistrial is the worst available outcome. It erases eleven votes and hands the Commonwealth a second attempt in front of a jury that may not divide the same way. Which is why the defense spent two days trying to remove the holdout, and the final hour trying to stop the discharge.
WGBH reported that the jury could not agree on whether Clancy was criminally responsible, which would place the division at the insanity defense rather than at whether she caused the deaths. That is the outlet’s characterization. The jury’s notes themselves never identified a count or an issue, and jurors are not asked to.
What the mistrial does not do
A mistrial is not an acquittal. It is not a finding of anything.
Double jeopardy ordinarily bars a second prosecution, but a mistrial declared out of manifest necessity is the exception, and a hung jury is its textbook example. The SJC has called it “a traditional example” of manifest necessity, and the United States Supreme Court has held that “jeopardy does not terminate when the jury is discharged because it is unable to agree.”
So the Commonwealth may retry all three indictments.
Sullivan built the record for that carefully over four days, which is what a judge does when he expects to be second-guessed:
- First note, Tuesday: sent the jury back with no deadlock instruction.
- Second note, Wednesday: gave the Tuey-Rodriquez charge, the Massachusetts deadlock instruction.
- Foreperson’s note, Thursday: reread the reasonable doubt instruction, declined to remove the juror.
- Friday morning: declined again, reinstructed, sent them back.
- Third note: declared the mistrial.
Compare the notes to the case law. In a February 2025 decision the SJC upheld a mistrial where the jury’s second note said it was deadlocked and “will not change this decision.” Wednesday’s note here said the jury was “still unable” to agree, and Sullivan responded by instructing rather than discharging. Friday’s note said the jury was unable to agree “and will not be able to.”
That is a statement about the future, and it is at least as unequivocal as the language the SJC has already held sufficient.
The double jeopardy claim survives, and it is a long shot
Because Reddington objected, Clancy can still argue that the mistrial was not manifestly necessary and that a retrial is therefore barred. That claim is raised by motion to dismiss before any second trial, with an appeal available from its denial.
The claim faces the same obstacle the petition faced. In the Karen Read case, the first jury deadlocked after five days and three notes, and the judge declared a mistrial. Jurors said afterward that they had unanimously agreed on acquittal on two of three charges. The defense argued the mistrial was not manifestly necessary and that the judge should have taken partial verdicts.
The SJC rejected all of it. Post-trial accounts of private deliberations, inconsistent with what the jury said in open court, cannot render a mistrial improper or constitute an acquittal where no verdict was announced or recorded. She was retried.
The partial verdict question, now closed
No partial verdict was returned on any count, and none has been reported as sought.
Within any single indictment, none was available. A judge is prohibited from taking a partial verdict on an indictment containing lesser included offenses, and each of the three charges first-degree murder with second-degree murder and manslaughter as lesser includeds. The jury could not have reported that it ruled out first-degree murder and had that recorded.
Across the three separate indictments a partial verdict was theoretically available, and a recorded acquittal on any one count could never have been retried. That did not happen. All three counts remain live.
What happens on September 29
Cruz has three options.
Retry. The default in a case of this profile. The SJC has permitted a third trial after two hung juries, so even a second deadlock would not end it.
Dismiss. Available at any time, and the option prosecutors take when they conclude a conviction is not achievable.
Negotiate. Reddington has pointed at this repeatedly: “We’ll see what Mr. Cruz wants to do.”
The practical considerations are the ones that always apply, and several cut against a retrial: a six-week trial with more than eighty witnesses and 300 exhibits, the cost of doing it again, the effect on the family, and a jury that reportedly came within one vote of acquitting. Prosecutors also now know exactly how the defense case performed, and so does the defense.
Reddington has said he is ready either way: “Bring it. I’ve got witnesses lined up.”
On how to characterize any of it, he said this week: “I don’t think this case is a victory, period. It’s a tragedy.”
Common questions
Was Lindsay Clancy found not guilty?
No. A mistrial is not a verdict and not an acquittal. The jury could not agree, so no verdict was returned on any of the three indictments and all three charges remain pending.
Can she be tried again?
Yes. A hung jury is the traditional example of the manifest necessity that permits a retrial without violating double jeopardy. The district attorney decides whether to proceed.
What happened with the emergency appeal?
Kevin Reddington petitioned a single justice of the SJC under the court’s general superintendence power, seeking to stop the mistrial. Associate Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt heard argument by Zoom Friday afternoon and denied it.
Could the defense still argue a retrial is barred?
Yes, because the defense objected to the mistrial. The argument is that it was declared without manifest necessity, raised by motion to dismiss before any second trial. The jury’s final note, saying it would not be able to agree, makes that argument difficult.
What is the next court date?
September 29, 2026, when the parties return to discuss next steps, including whether the Commonwealth will retry the case.
Jury notes, courtroom quotations, the SJC single justice ruling, and the September 29 date as reported by Boston.com, the Associated Press, WGBH, WBUR, NBC10 Boston, and PBS on September 4, 2026. The characterization that the jury divided over criminal responsibility is WGBH’s; the jury’s notes did not identify a count or an issue. Legal standards from Commonwealth v. Connor, 392 Mass. 838 (1984); Commonwealth v. Tiscione, 482 Mass. 485 (2019); Commonwealth v. Rodriquez, 364 Mass. 87 (1973); Commonwealth v. Roth, 437 Mass. 777 (2002); Daniels v. Commonwealth, 441 Mass. 1017 (2004); Read v. Commonwealth, SJC-13663 (2025); and G.L. c. 211 § 3. The charges against Lindsay Clancy are unproven and she is presumed innocent. General legal information, not legal advice.