A single juror in Lindsay Clancy's murder trial is preventing the jury from finding her not guilty of killing her three young children, her lawyer said in court on Friday (September 4) as the jury entered a seventh day of deliberations.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington, who says Clancy's actions were driven by postpartum psychosis, asked Judge William Sullivan to remove that one juror.

Sullivan rejected Reddington's request and instructed the jury to continue deliberating.

The 12 jurors in Plymouth, Massachusetts, have repeatedly hit an impasse over whether to convict Clancy. The jury foreperson sent a note on Thursday on behalf of 11 jurors indicating that one of them had acknowledged doubt but refused to apply it to the verdict.

Jurors can only find Clancy guilty of first-degree murder if the prosecution proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jurors also sent notes to the judge on Tuesday and Wednesday saying they were unable to come to a unanimous decision and the judge each time instructed them to continue deliberating.

If the jury does not reach a verdict and Sullivan declares a mistrial, prosecutors would need to decide whether to retry the case, which has featured over 80 witnesses and over 300 exhibits.

Clancy, 36, faces life in prison without parole if convicted of first-degree murder. If found not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, or reason of insanity, she could be committed to a state psychiatric hospital for evaluation.

She has admitted to strangling her three children to death on January 24, 2023, with exercise bands in the basement of their home in the Boston suburb of Duxbury. She then cut herself with a knife and jumped from a second-story window in an attempt to end her own life that left her paralyzed.

During the six-week trial, Reddington sought to convince jurors that Clancy was in the midst of a psychotic episode when she killed Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and 8-month-old Callan.

Testimony from family members, including Clancy's now ex-husband Patrick, detailed how she had struggled with her mental health in the months after the birth of her third child, repeatedly seeking treatment from healthcare providers who prescribed her a myriad of drugs.

DESCRIPCIÓN DE IMÁGENES

SHOWS: PLYMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS, UNITED STATES (SEPTEMBER 4, 2026) (REUTERS - ACCESS ALL)

1. DEFENSE ATTORNEY KEVIN REDDINGTON AND HIS TEAM WALKING TOWARD COURTHOUSE

2. VARIOUS OF MEDIA SCRUM SURROUNDING REDDINGTON AS HE WALKS

3. REDDINGTON ENTERING COURTHOUSE

PLYMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS, UNITED STATES (SEPTEMBER 4, 2026) (POOL - ACCESS ALL)

4. WIDE OF JUDGE WILLIAM SULLIVAN SEATED AT BENCH WHILE COURT CLERK IS SPEAKING

5. JUDGE SULLIVAN RISES AND GREETS COURTROOM

6. (SOUNDBITE) (English) KEVIN REDDINGTON, LINDSAY CLANCY'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY SAYING:

"Clearly Judge, we have a person who under their oath stood in front of you yesterday when you did the individual voir dire and according to this information, under oath, looked you in the eye and lied. That juror told you that he would be able to apply the law to the facts as you asked him. And based on this note from this juror... It clearly and unequivocally indicates that they are basically 11 to one, and this person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not guilty verdict. I would ask that the court would, and I know it's awkward. I'm familiar with the law. I know that we try to protect and preserve the sanctity, if you will, of the jury. We don't want to invade their deliberations. We want to keep that private. Obviously, that's a good thing to do, but when you have a situation where you have not one but two notes that clearly indicates that this individual has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict, as the law states, he is not being honest with you at the sidebar. I would go so far as to reluctantly say that the individual has made a false statement under oath to this court. There has to be an issue that is not arising out of deliberations in the facts of this case, but the individual is refusing to apply your instructions on proof beyond a reasonable doubt to allow that jury to return a verdict of not guilty."

7. CLOSE UP OF LINDSAY CLANCY

8. (SOUNDBITE) (English) KEVIN REDDINGTON, LINDSAY CLANCY'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY SAYING:

"Well, you listen to my instructions. I would ask that you specifically direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and re-instruct them on that forcefully."

9. (SOUNDBITE) (English) JUDGE WILLIAM SULLIVAN SAYING:

"I think I did that yesterday, didn't I? (Clerk "Yes")

10. (SOUNDBITE) (English) KEVIN REDDINGTON, LINDSAY CLANCY'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY SAYING:

"You did it yesterday, you did it soft, you didn't do it forcefully, and I'm asking you to do it for us.

11. (SOUNDBITE) (English) JUDGE WILLIAM SULLIVAN SAYING:

"What do you want me to do, get a brass band? I read the instruction as written by the SJC (Supreme Judicial Court). The fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that. I'm not an actor. I've just given the...

Instructions."

12. (SOUNDBITE) (English) KEVIN REDDINGTON, LINDSAY CLANCY'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY SAYING:

"Well my point judge simply is that you're kind of glossing over the issue the issue is this juror will not according to that note apply the law of reasonable doubt and that's why I've requested you know what I've requested so ..."

13. (SOUNDBITE) (English) JUDGE WILLIAM SULLIVAN SAYING:

"But just in case the record's clear, I am specifically not glossing over this issue. I have thought about this issue long and hard. I know the defendant objects, but the characterization that I'm glossing it, trust me, that's not the situation. I've been thinking about this for quite a while."

14. VIEW OF DEFENSE AND PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS STANDING WITH CLANCY SEATED AN THE END OF THE ROW

15. VIEW OF LINDSAY CLANCY AND HER ATTORNEY