Lindsay Clancy judge seals juror names indefinitely due to ‘real and present risk’
Lindsay Clancy’s triple murder trial gained international attention this summer (Picture: AP Photo/Josh Reynolds)
It’s been almost two weeks since Lindsay Clancy’s triple murder case was declared a mistrial, after one holdout juror refused to acquit the Massachusetts mother of legal responsibility for killing her three children.
Now, Judge William Sullivan, who presided over Clancy’s case, has sealed the jurors’ identities, claiming that they face a ‘real and present’ risk of harm.
For much of the summer, Clancy was on trial for murdering her three young kids: Cora, five, Dawson, three, and Callan, eight months, in January 2023, before attempting to take her own life.
While the 36-year-old former labour and delivery nurse has never denied the killings, her defence claimed she was in a state of postpartum psychosis when the crimes took place and was not criminally responsible for her actions.
Clancy’s controversial trial gained worldwide attention due to its heavy subject, sparking widespread recognition and outrage over the barriers women face in accessing care, and the lack of research into postpartum mental health conditions.
Judge William Sullivan has had to seal the jurors’ identities due to a ‘real’ risk of harm (Picture: REUTERS)
‘This case has garnered and continues to garner significant and divisive attention in Massachusetts, nationally and internationally,’ Sullivan’s order read.
‘It’s why the judge has indefinitely extended an impound order already in place, explaining juror names would remain hidden from the public ‘until and unless otherwise ordered by the Court.’
The order continued: ‘Based on the circumstances of this trial and the fact that the case continues to receive daily, divisive attention in Massachusetts and beyond, the Court concludes there is a real and present risk of [personal] harm to the jurors.’
Those who followed the trial know that 11 out of 12 jurors (which was made up of nine women and three men) voted to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity.
This verdict would have confined her to a psychiatric facility indefinitely — likely Tewksbury Hospital in Massachusetts, where she has resided since 2023.
Clancy’s defence attorney Kevin Reddington said the holdout juror ‘robbed’ them of a not-guilty verdict (Picture: REUTERS)
According to Clancy’s defence attorney, Kevin Reddington, the holdout juror ‘robbed’ them of a not-guilty verdict. During the trial, it was revealed the juror actually ‘admitted’ he had reasonable doubt about her guilt.
Reddington also asked that the juror be removed after the jury forewoman sent the judge a note saying one juror would not follow the judge’s instructions on reasonable doubt.
The defence attorney told reporters at the time that the one holdout on the jury ‘refuses to listen to the law on reasonable doubt.’
The attorney also argued the juror made statements ‘acknowledging doubt’ but ‘refuses to apply the verdict’ by the letter of the law.
Therefore, Reddington accused the juror of lying to the judge under oath.
Since the trial ended, social media sleuths and true crime fanatics have tried to uncover the identities of the jurors, which is why the judge placed the order.
Clancy was on trial for the killings of her three children in January 2023 (Picture: Facebook)
However, the holdout juror’s brother has anonymously spoken out about the ordeal, stating that his sibling did not let his Catholic faith override his judgment during deliberations — another accusation that has been doing the rounds online.
The juror’s brother recently told The New York Post: ‘I don’t think religion had anything to do with it. He looked at the case, and he made the call.’
The sibling then added that would be the route he would have taken, too.
‘For me, that’s how I would do it. I would just listen to the case with all the evidence, and go from there. His choice was good for some people, but not good for other people.’
The brother — who told The Post that he had no idea his sibling was serving on the high-profile trial — also alleged that his ‘family cannot leave the house’ due to the media and true crime frenzy surrounding the case.
‘They are leaving notes at my mother’s house. They won’t leave us alone and we don’t know anything,’ he said, adding: ‘People have been calling me like crazy. It’s crazy.’
Clancy will remain at Tewksbury Hospital in Massachusetts (Picture: Greg Derr/Pool The Patriot Ledge)
Following the mistrial, it was also revealed that the holdout juror had a criminal record.
In 2021, he was reportedly arrested for domestic abuse, but the charges were later dropped. In 2025, there were also reported accusations that the juror had beaten his teenage nephew, who allegedly reported the previous domestic violence case.
According to The New York Post, the juror had a restraining order against him from the nephew at the time he was picked for the Clancy jury.
The outlet said court documents reveal it expired during the trial.
In terms of Clancy’s case, she did not deny strangling her children with an exercise band in the basement of her family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts home, before attempting suicide by self-harming and jumping from a second-storey window — an act that left her in a wheelchair and paralysed from the waist down.
Clancy broke down many times in court (Picture: AP Photo/Josh Reynolds)
Rather, she pleaded not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility due to her postpartum psychosis symptoms.
Symptoms of postpartum psychosis — which is treated as a medical emergency — include insomnia, delusions, hallucinations, severe confusion, and dangerous thoughts regarding self-harm, suicide, or harming the infant.
In contrast, the prosecution argued that, while there was no doubt Clancy was suffering from depression, she still made a calculated decision to kill her children.
They also alleged that Clancy deliberately sent her ex-husband and father of her children, Patrick Clancy, out on an errand at the time of the killings so that she was free to commit the crimes.
In order to convict a defendant in the United States, juries must reach a unanimous decision.
Prosecutors have not yet said if they will retry the case a second time after the mistrial.
Comment now
Comments
Add Metro as a Preferred Source on Google
Add as preferred source
3 hours ago
