The Lindsay Clancy jury returned to the deliberation room at about 9:10 Thursday morning for a sixth day. A courtroom observer noted what they were wearing: “Many are wearing black. No pink. They look weary.”
There is no verdict on any of the three indictments.
Two things changed Wednesday that move this case into different legal territory, and one of them raises a question nobody has reported an answer to.
What happened Wednesday
The jury sent a second deadlock note, at roughly 2:30 p.m. In full:
“After much deliberation, we are still unable to come to a unanimous decision.”
That followed the first note, sent Tuesday at 10:20 a.m.:
“After many hours of deliberation, we are unable to come to a unanimous decision.”
After the first note, Judge William Sullivan sent them back without a deadlock instruction, telling them:
“I brought you back out because I know that this was a long trial. I know there are over 80 witnesses; there are over 300 exhibits… I’m going to ask you to go back out, keeping in mind all of the instructions that I gave you, to go out and to continue your deliberations at this time.”
After the second note, he gave the Tuey-Rodriquez charge. That is the Massachusetts deadlock instruction, sometimes called the dynamite charge, and it is the last procedural lever a judge has short of declaring a mistrial.
The one fragment quoted verbatim in coverage:
“In conferring together, you ought to pay proper respect to each other’s opinions and listen with an open mind to each other’s arguments.”
Reporting describes the rest of the charge as telling jurors they have a duty to reach a verdict if they can do so conscientiously, that they should not abandon their convictions merely to force agreement but should seriously reconsider opposing views, and that no future jury would be better positioned to decide the case. We have not obtained a full transcript, so treat everything except the quoted sentence as paraphrase.
Sullivan adjourned at 4:10 p.m., after roughly 30 hours of deliberation over five days.
The statute nobody has reported the answer to
Here is the part that matters, and it is not in the coverage.
Massachusetts law limits how many times a judge may send a deadlocked jury back. The provision:
“If a jury, after due and thorough deliberation, returns to court without having agreed on a verdict, the court may state anew the evidence or any part of the evidence, explain to them anew the law applicable to the case and send them out for further deliberation; but if they return a second time without having agreed on a verdict, they shall not be sent out again without their own consent, unless they ask from the court some further explanation of the law.”
This jury has now returned twice without agreeing.
No outlet has reported that Judge Sullivan took the jurors’ consent on the record before sending them back Wednesday. That does not mean he failed to. Not everything said in a courtroom gets reported, the exchange may have been brief, and the statute’s own exception covers a jury asking for further explanation of the law, which a Tuey-Rodriquez charge arguably supplies. But it is the open question on the record as it currently stands, and if there is a conviction it is the sort of thing appellate counsel examines first.
A citation correction
Several outlets are quoting this language as G.L. c. 234 § 34. That statute no longer exists. Chapter 234 was repealed in its entirety by Chapter 36 of the Acts of 2016.
The language survives, word for word, at G.L. c. 234A § 68C, titled “Failure of jury to agree.” The substance of the reporting is correct. The citation is a decade out of date.
Why the second note may not end this
A second deadlock note is the trigger point in the Massachusetts case law, but the wording of the note does the work, and this one is weaker than it looks.
In a case the Supreme Judicial Court decided in February 2025, a jury’s second note read:
“After careful deliberation we, the jury, are not able to reach a unanimous decision. We the jury are deadlocked in our decision and after careful consideration and further discussion, will not change this decision.”
The judge said she had “no alternative but to declare a mistrial.” The SJC upheld her, holding that after a second and unequivocal statement of deadlock she properly declined to ask whether the jurors would consent to continuing.
Compare the note here: “we are still unable to come to a unanimous decision.”
That is a report of a present condition. It does not say the jurors will not change, does not say further deliberation would be futile, and does not foreclose progress. It is a materially softer statement than the one that compelled a mistrial in the 2025 case, which is consistent with Sullivan giving the deadlock charge rather than discharging the jury.
If a third note arrives, its phrasing is what to read closely. Language of finality, that the jury will not change or that further deliberation would be futile, is what effectively ties a judge’s hands.
What a mistrial would and would not mean
No mistrial has been declared. We found no reporting of a mistrial motion from either side, and no reporting of any discussion of a partial verdict, though the absence of reporting is not proof that neither occurred.
A hung jury is the traditional example of the “manifest necessity” that permits a mistrial without barring retrial on double jeopardy grounds. So a mistrial here would not end the case. The charges would remain and the Commonwealth could try Clancy again. The SJC has permitted a third trial after two hung juries.
On partial verdicts, the constraint is specific and it is worth understanding:
Within any single count, no partial verdict is possible. Each of the three indictments carries first-degree murder with second-degree murder and manslaughter as lesser included offenses, plus not guilty and not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. A judge is prohibited from taking a partial verdict on a single indictment containing lesser included offenses. The jury cannot report that it has ruled out first-degree murder and have that recorded.
Across the three counts, a partial verdict is theoretically available, because they are separate indictments. Whether Sullivan would take one is his discretion, and Rule 27(b) does not require him to.
The defense is talking about a retrial in the present tense
Kevin Reddington arrived Thursday carrying a box of letters sent to Clancy from supporters. Asked about a retrial:
“Bring it. I’ve got witnesses lined up, we’re all set.”
On whether there might be a negotiated resolution, he pointed at the district attorney: “We’ll see what Mr. Cruz wants to do.”
And on Wednesday, on how to characterize any outcome:
“I don’t think this case is a victory, period. It’s a tragedy.”
One correction to our earlier reporting
We reported Wednesday that there was no indication the jury had been told about the woman arrested for allegedly filming jurors leaving the courthouse. That was wrong, and it changes the analysis.
Judge Sullivan questioned the jurors individually about the incident earlier this week. The questions could not be heard from the gallery and he did not disclose what he asked. No juror was excused.
Individual voir dire is the response Massachusetts practice calls for when a jury may have been exposed to an outside influence, and it is the same procedure Sullivan used on August 20 after several hundred supporters gathered outside the courthouse. Having done it, the record on this issue is considerably stronger than it would have been had the incident gone unaddressed. Our earlier piece has been updated.
Dawn Light, 56, of Sutton, pleaded not guilty Wednesday to intimidation of a juror and was released on personal recognizance with conditions barring contact with jurors and dissemination of any recording. She has not been convicted of anything.
What we do not know
The notes did not identify a count. They gave no numerical split. They did not say whether the division is over criminal responsibility, over degree, or over something else.
Juries are not asked to disclose that. Inferences drawn from what jurors are wearing, how they look, or how long they have been out have no evidentiary value, and the SJC held in the Karen Read appeal that even accurate post-trial accounts of private deliberations cannot render a mistrial improper or constitute an acquittal where no verdict was announced in open court.
What would tell us something is a third note.
Common questions
Is there a verdict in the Lindsay Clancy case?
No. As of Thursday, September 3, the jury is in a sixth day of deliberations with roughly 30 hours logged through Wednesday. No verdict has been returned on any of the three indictments.
What is the Tuey-Rodriquez charge?
The Massachusetts instruction given to a deadlocked jury, sometimes called the dynamite charge. It tells jurors they have a duty to reach a verdict if they conscientiously can, and to reconsider opposing views without abandoning honest convictions. Judge Sullivan gave it Wednesday afternoon after the second deadlock note.
How many times can a judge send a deadlocked jury back?
Under G.L. c. 234A § 68C, after a jury returns a second time without agreeing, it may not be sent out again without the jurors’ own consent, unless they ask for further explanation of the law. Note that outlets citing G.L. c. 234 § 34 for this rule are citing a chapter repealed in 2016.
Would a mistrial end the case?
No. A hung jury is the traditional example of manifest necessity, which permits a mistrial without barring retrial. The Commonwealth could try the case again, and the SJC has permitted a third trial after two hung juries.
Could the jury convict on one child’s count and hang on another?
Potentially, because the three counts are separate indictments. But no partial verdict is permitted within a single count, since each carries lesser included offenses. Each count must be resolved completely or not at all.
Deliberation status, jury notes, and courtroom quotations as reported by Boston.com, NBC10 Boston, and WHDH, September 1 through the morning of September 3, 2026. Statutory text quoted directly from G.L. c. 234A § 68C. Partial verdict rule from Mass. R. Crim. P. 27(b). Deadlock and double jeopardy framework from Massachusetts appellate decisions including the 2025 hung jury cases and the Karen Read appeal. Charges against Lindsay Clancy and Dawn Light are unproven and both are presumed innocent. General legal information, not legal advice.