The jury deciding whether a Massachusetts mother is criminally responsible for killing her three children has reported a deadlock for the second time in two days, and a retired judge says a mistrial is now the most likely outcome.

Jurors in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial returned to Plymouth Superior Court on Wednesday for a fifth day of deliberations and, within hours, told Judge William Sullivan they still could not reach a unanimous verdict. Sullivan responded with a Tuey-Rodriguez charge, a formal instruction, named for two Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decisions, that urges jurors to weigh one another's views carefully while holding firm to sincerely held convictions. The charge is widely regarded as the final procedural step a judge can take before declaring a mistrial.

The panel of nine women and three men deliberated for several more hours after receiving the instruction. They reached no agreement. Sullivan dismissed them for the day and ordered them back Thursday morning.

Clancy, 36, a former labor and delivery nurse, does not dispute that she killed her children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, inside the family's home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, on January 24, 2023. The central question at trial has been whether she was suffering from postpartum psychosis severe enough to strip her of criminal responsibility, or whether she acted with deliberate intent and knew the difference between right and wrong.

Prosecutors have argued Clancy made a calculated choice. Plymouth County prosecutor Shanan Buckingham told the jury during the trial that Clancy "made a choice, a deliberate and intentional decision, that she did not want to try anymore. And because no one could take care of her kids the way she wanted them to, she had to take them with her too." The prosecution's case rests on evidence that Clancy concealed disturbing thoughts from her medical providers, conduct, prosecutors contend, that shows awareness and planning, not psychosis.

A "dynamite charge" that may not break the deadlock

The Tuey-Rodriguez instruction, sometimes called a "dynamite charge" in legal shorthand, exists to nudge a stalled jury toward consensus without coercing any individual juror into abandoning a genuine belief. Retired Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Thomas Drechsler, who has provided expert commentary to Fox News Digital, explained the logic behind it:

"The reasoning is that it often works. It encourages the jurors to rethink their own feelings in light of what other jurors feel, reminds them that no one's ever going to be in a better position to decide this than them."

But Drechsler was blunt about what happens if the instruction fails. Asked whether a continued deadlock would lead to a mistrial, he said: "I think there's a high likelihood that it will."

Boston defense attorney and former prosecutor Brad Bailey offered a similar assessment. Once a Tuey-Rodriguez charge has been given, Bailey told reporters, "normally once Tuey has been given, if they come back again and say they are still deadlocked, the judge is constrained to grant them a mistrial."

The emotional weight of this case, a mother who killed three small children, makes the jury's difficulty understandable. But the legal system demands a verdict or a formal declaration that one cannot be reached. Five days and two deadlock notices have brought this trial to the edge of that line.

The trial itself has been grueling. Earlier proceedings were halted when Clancy broke down during autopsy testimony about her daughter, a moment that underscored the raw human cost at the center of the case.

Woman arraigned after allegedly filming jurors outside courthouse

The deadlock was not the only development Wednesday. A woman named Dawn Light was arraigned on a witness intimidation-related charge after she allegedly filmed jurors leaving the courthouse on Tuesday. Light pleaded not guilty and maintained she was trying to catch a glimpse of Clancy, not intentionally recording jurors.

A judge released Light on personal recognizance but imposed strict conditions: she must stay away from the courthouse, have no contact with jurors or witnesses, and refrain from sharing any images. The incident prompted Judge Sullivan to remind everyone in the courtroom, before deliberations resumed Wednesday morning, that orders protecting jurors and other participants "are being enforced and will be enforced." Sullivan did not specifically reference Light's arrest.

The arraignment is a reminder that high-profile trials attract interference, and that courts have limited tools to prevent it. Jurors in cases like this one already carry an extraordinary burden. The prospect that someone outside the courtroom might be recording them as they leave only adds pressure to an already fractured deliberation.

Judicial conduct in high-profile murder cases has drawn scrutiny elsewhere, too. In Texas, a judge was removed from a murder appeal after making post-trial television comments, a case that illustrated how quickly public attention can compromise courtroom proceedings.

If the jury cannot agree, prosecutors face a hard choice

Should Sullivan ultimately declare a mistrial, the case does not simply disappear. Prosecutors would have to decide whether to retry Clancy, pursue a plea deal, or drop the charges entirely. Clancy would remain held at a psychiatric hospital in the interim, Newsmax reported.

Bailey, the Boston attorney, noted that the specter of a retrial changes the calculus for both sides. "Any time the threat of a retrial with murder one hanging over the client is re-interjected, defense lawyers will, at the very least, explore whether or not there's any interest in a resolution," he said.

Clancy's defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, projected confidence about a possible second trial. "I've got witnesses lined up. We're all set. So let's go," Reddington said.

The defense's position throughout has been that Clancy was in the grip of postpartum psychosis, a severe psychiatric condition, and lacked the capacity to understand what she was doing. Prosecutors have countered that she planned the killings and deliberately hid her mental state from doctors. That factual dispute is what has apparently split the jury.

Later reporting from the Associated Press revealed that the jury's internal conflict may run deeper than a simple split. The foreperson reportedly complained to the judge that one specific juror was refusing to follow the law on reasonable doubt, the first indication of active tension inside the deliberation room, rather than a straightforward inability to agree.

High-profile murder trials that end in conviction often face years of appeals. In Ohio, the state Supreme Court recently rejected a defendant's final state appeal in a double murder case, closing one chapter but opening the possibility of federal review. A verdict in the Clancy case, if one ever comes, could follow a similar path.

The Clancy trial has also drawn national attention to the broader question of how the criminal justice system handles maternal mental illness. The case has sparked public debate over whether postpartum psychosis should function as a complete defense to murder or whether accountability must still attach when a parent kills a child. That debate will not end with a verdict, or a mistrial.

Jury deliberations in other recent murder cases have produced their own dramatic outcomes. A Florida jury convicted a man in the roadside killing of a Microsoft executive, a case that moved from arrest to verdict far more quickly than the Clancy proceedings.

Thursday's session will determine whether this jury can find its way to unanimity, or whether the families of three dead children, the defendant, and the public will have to endure the entire process again. Five days of deliberation, two deadlock notices, a rare judicial instruction, and a witness-intimidation arrest have not produced a resolution. The jury owes no one a quick answer. But the victims deserve a final one.