Kevin Reddington, Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney, made an emergency appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on September 4, 2026, after Judge William Sullivan moved to declare a mistrial following a jury deadlock. Reddington wanted the higher court to stop the mistrial and require further action concerning a juror whom the defense said was refusing to apply the judge’s reasonable-doubt instructions. The emergency request was denied, allowing the mistrial to proceed.

Introduction

The Lindsay Clancy murder trial ended without a verdict on September 4, 2026, after a Plymouth County jury failed to reach a unanimous decision. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington made a last-minute emergency appeal to Massachusetts’ highest court in an effort to prevent the mistrial, but the request for emergency relief was denied.

The case had reached a critical point after more than seven days of jury deliberations. Jurors had communicated multiple times that they were unable to agree, and the jury foreperson had raised concerns about one member who allegedly was not applying the court’s instructions on reasonable doubt. Reddington argued that the issue warranted further judicial inquiry rather than ending the trial.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did not intervene. Judge William Sullivan subsequently declared the mistrial, leaving the case unresolved and potentially setting the stage for another prosecution.

What Happened?

The dispute developed during the final days of deliberations in Plymouth Superior Court.

The 12-person jury had been considering whether Clancy was criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children, Cora, Dawson and Callan, in January 2023.

Clancy did not dispute that she killed the children. Her defense, led by Kevin Reddington, argued that she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis and should therefore be found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. Prosecutors argued that she was mentally capable of planning and carrying out the killings.

After days of deliberation, the jury remained divided.

On Thursday, September 3, the jury foreperson informed Judge Sullivan that one juror had made statements acknowledging doubt but was refusing to apply that doubt as required by the law, according to reports from the courtroom. Reddington argued that the juror should be questioned individually and potentially removed.

Judge Sullivan declined to remove the juror or conduct the inquiry requested by the defense.

The jury returned to deliberations.

On Friday, September 4, the jurors again reported that they could not reach a unanimous decision.

Sullivan then said he would declare a mistrial.

Why Did Kevin Reddington File an Emergency Appeal?

Reddington's concern was not simply that the jury disagreed with his defense.

His argument centered on whether one juror was improperly refusing to follow the court's legal instructions concerning reasonable doubt.

The defense wanted the trial judge to investigate whether the juror was capable of following those instructions. The emergency filing asked the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to intervene before the mistrial became final.

According to the emergency filing reported by NBC Boston, the defense asked the state's highest court to require the Plymouth Superior Court to examine the holdout juror's ability to apply the law or prevent that juror from continuing to deliberate unless the court determined through individual questioning that the juror could follow the instructions.

Reddington was given approximately one hour to pursue the emergency appeal.

The appeal was filed, and an emergency hearing was held before a single justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Why Was Kevin Reddington's Emergency Appeal Denied?

The central issue was the defense's attempt to obtain extraordinary intervention in the jury's deliberations.

A single justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ultimately declined to stop the mistrial. The available reporting indicates that the court did not grant the emergency relief requested by Clancy's defense, allowing Judge Sullivan to proceed with the mistrial.

The distinction is important.

The appeal was not an attempt to overturn a guilty verdict. There was no guilty or not-guilty verdict to overturn.

Instead, Reddington was asking the higher court to intervene before the mistrial was finalized because of concerns about the conduct and legal position of one juror.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's refusal to intervene meant the existing deadlock remained unresolved.

Key Details

• Defendant: Lindsay Clancy
• Defense attorney: Kevin Reddington
• Trial court: Plymouth Superior Court, Massachusetts
• Judge: William Sullivan
• Emergency appeal: Filed with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
• Issue: Whether the court should intervene over concerns involving a holdout juror
• Jury: 12 members
• Deliberations: More than seven days
• Result: No unanimous verdict
• Final outcome: Mistrial
• Next major court date: September 29, according to current reporting
• Potential next step: Prosecutors could seek a retrial, although a final decision has not been announced.

Background of the Lindsay Clancy Case

Clancy was charged with three counts of first-degree murder following the deaths of her three children in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in January 2023.

The children were Cora, Dawson and Callan.

The defense acknowledged that Clancy strangled the children but argued that she was experiencing severe postpartum psychosis and therefore lacked criminal responsibility for her actions. Prosecutors presented a different interpretation of her mental state, arguing that she was capable of planning and intentionally carrying out the killings.

The trial became closely watched because it combined questions of criminal responsibility with complicated issues surrounding postpartum mental illness.

The prosecution and defense presented competing expert interpretations of Clancy's psychological condition.

The jury ultimately could not resolve those competing arguments unanimously.

The Holdout Juror Dispute

The juror controversy became the most significant development during deliberations.

According to courtroom reporting, the jury foreperson communicated that one juror had acknowledged doubt but was allegedly refusing to apply the legal standard of reasonable doubt to the verdict.

Reddington believed that this demonstrated a problem that could prevent the jury from reaching a lawful verdict.

He repeatedly sought further questioning of the juror.

Judge Sullivan disagreed with the defense's approach and declined to remove the juror.

The judge had already instructed the jury about reasonable doubt, and he maintained that jurors had affirmed their ability to follow his instructions.

That disagreement eventually became the basis for Reddington's emergency request to the state's highest court.

What Officials and Organizations Said

Judge William Sullivan said the jury's repeated inability to reach unanimity required the court to move toward a mistrial.

Reddington strongly objected and sought time to ask the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to intervene. The judge granted the defense approximately one hour to pursue that emergency request before proceeding.

Reddington argued that the holdout juror presented an unusual situation because, according to the jury foreperson, the juror had acknowledged doubt but was not applying it as instructed by the court.

The higher court ultimately declined to grant the requested emergency relief.

Importantly, there is no indication that the Supreme Judicial Court ruled on whether Clancy was criminally responsible for the deaths. The immediate question was whether extraordinary intervention was warranted to stop the mistrial.

Why This Matters

The failed emergency appeal matters because it illustrates the extremely limited circumstances in which an appellate court may intervene while a jury is still deliberating.

A jury's disagreement does not ordinarily give either side the right to replace a juror simply because that juror appears to favor a different outcome.

The legal system also places significant importance on protecting independent jury deliberations.

In this case, the defense argued that the alleged conduct went beyond an ordinary disagreement because the juror was supposedly refusing to apply the court's instructions. The trial judge did not accept that argument as a reason to remove the juror, and the Supreme Judicial Court declined to stop the mistrial.

The result is that neither side received a verdict.

For Clancy, the mistrial does not amount to an acquittal. It also does not establish guilt.

The criminal case therefore remains unresolved.

What Does a Mistrial Mean?

A mistrial means the trial ended without a final verdict.

In this case, the reason was a hung jury: the 12 jurors could not unanimously decide the matter after extensive deliberations.

A mistrial is different from an acquittal.

Clancy has not been found not guilty by the jury, nor has she been convicted.

The prosecution may potentially seek another trial. However, as of the latest reports available, prosecutors had not finalized their decision about whether to pursue a retrial.

What Happens Next?

The next stage is expected to involve further court proceedings concerning the unresolved case.

A hearing is scheduled for September 29, 2026, according to current reporting. The possibility of a retrial may be addressed as the parties return to court.

The prosecution has not publicly committed to a retrial in the reporting reviewed for this article.

The defense, meanwhile, has indicated that it intends to continue challenging the case.

That means the September 4 mistrial is not necessarily the final chapter in the criminal proceedings.

FAQs

What happened to the Lindsay Clancy trial?

The trial ended in a mistrial on September 4, 2026, after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict following more than seven days of deliberation.

Why did Kevin Reddington appeal the mistrial?

Kevin Reddington sought emergency intervention because the defense believed one juror was refusing to properly apply the court's instructions about reasonable doubt. He wanted the juror investigated and potentially removed so the remaining jurors could continue deliberating.

Was Kevin Reddington's emergency appeal successful?

No. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declined to grant the emergency relief requested by Clancy's defense, allowing the mistrial to proceed.

Was Lindsay Clancy found guilty?

No. There was no verdict. The jury was deadlocked, so the case ended in a mistrial rather than a conviction or acquittal.

Was Lindsay Clancy found not guilty?

No. A mistrial is not an acquittal. Because the jury did not reach a unanimous verdict, the question of Clancy's criminal responsibility remains unresolved.

Can Lindsay Clancy be tried again?

Potentially, yes. A mistrial caused by a hung jury can leave the prosecution able to pursue another trial. However, prosecutors had not definitively announced a retrial as of the latest reporting reviewed.

What was the disagreement about the holdout juror?

The jury foreperson reportedly told the judge that one juror had acknowledged doubt but was not applying that doubt according to the court's instructions. Reddington argued that the juror should be questioned individually. Judge Sullivan declined to do so.

When is Lindsay Clancy's next court hearing?

A further hearing is scheduled for September 29, 2026, where the future of the case can be addressed.

Sources of the Content

This article was based on the latest reporting available on September 5, 2026, with cross-checking across multiple established news organizations.

Key sources include:

• Reuters — September 4, 2026, reporting on the mistrial, jury deadlock and denial of the emergency appeal.
• Associated Press — reporting on the deadlocked jury and emergency appeal.
• CBS Boston — live courtroom reporting on the mistrial and defense appeal.
• Boston 25 News — reporting on Reddington's emergency filing and the Supreme Judicial Court hearing.
• NBC Boston — publication of the defense's emergency appeal and details of the requested relief.
• The Boston Globe — live courtroom reporting and legal context surrounding the unusual emergency petition.
• The Guardian — reporting on the mistrial, jury deadlock and high-court intervention attempt.

Accuracy note: The emergency appeal was an attempt to prevent the mistrial and obtain further judicial action concerning the disputed juror. It was not an appeal of a guilty verdict. The mistrial means the jury never reached a final verdict on Clancy's criminal responsibility.