Courageous Juror Restores Faith In The Justice System

In response to the charges, Clancy “pleaded not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, claiming that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and overmedication.”

Prosecutors asserted that Clancy knew what she was doing on the night she killed her children. She sent her husband, Patrick, out of the house to run errands and to pick up dinner. While he was running errands, they spoke on the phone. When he returned, he found his three dead children, and his wife had attempted suicide.

Because of the story's tragic nature, the trial, held in a Plymouth, MA, courthouse, became a national sensation. Millions of Americans followed the trial live online. Opinions were split on whether Clancy was guilty or should be acquitted due to her mental illness.

Outside the courthouse, Clancy's female supporters wore pink to show solidarity. Inside the courthouse, two female jurors also wore pink, seemingly to show their support for her too.

During the trial, Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, blasted her doctors who prescribed her a variety of medications to treat her illness. He said she was not treated properly and blamed the killings on “the damn medicine and the lousy medical care that she got.”

After Reddington and the prosecutors presented their cases, questioned witnesses, and made their final arguments, the jury of nine women and three men began deliberations. Along with first-degree murder charges, the jury considered the lesser charges of second-degree murder and manslaughter.

On multiple occasions, the jurors informed Judge William Sullivan that they were deadlocked. He eventually issued them “an instruction known as Tuey-Rodriguez, which states that a verdict is ‘preferable’ before sending them back to deliberate further.” Several days later, it became clear they could not reach a consensus, and Judge Sullivan declared a mistrial.

Reddington not only attacked the legal system but also put a target on the holdout juror's back

It seems one holdout refused to acquit Clancy. Reddington identified this individual as one of the three men on the jury. During a press conference outside the courthouse, Reddington said his client was “robbed by this man,” who “stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurors that were so attentive, so beautiful, so wonderful.” Reddington wondered what the juror’s “agenda” may have been and fumed that he hoped he could “sleep at night” after his actions.

These statements were atrocious; Reddington not only attacked the legal system but also put a target on the holdout juror's back. Clancy has many fervent followers who are angry and unstable and may try to harm this juror if his identity is revealed. Unquestionably, Reddington put this man’s life in jeopardy.

Because of the concern about the safety of the jurors, Judge Sullivan ordered “the list identifying the names of empaneled jurors in this trial be impounded. This Order shall not preclude any juror from identifying himself or herself and/or from speaking to the public about his or her jury service.” Unfortunately, the order is in effect for only 14 days, unless it is extended.

One example of a zealous Clancy supporter is Dawn Light, “a self-described crime junkie.” She was arrested for parking her car in a restricted area and taking photos of the jurors leaving the courthouse. While she claimed she only wanted a photo of Clancy, a photo of the jurors was found in her “deleted file.” It is illegal to “intimidate” jurors, and Light could spend years in jail for this offense if convicted.

Nancy Grace, television journalist and legal commentator, said Reddington should have been held “in contempt” for his actions in the courtroom. He wanted Judge Sullivan to “re-instruct” the jurors more “forcefully” on the issue of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge asked, “What do you want me to do? Get a brass band?” He added, “I read the instruction(s) … the fact that I perhaps didn’t give it my full inflection, I’m sorry about that, I’m not an actor.”

Still, Reddington was unsatisfied, for he demanded that the judge individually question the holdout juror and replace him due to “a personal issue interfering with…(his) ability to…deliberate.” Fortunately, Judge Sullivan denied both outrageous requests.

Before the mistrial could be finalized, Reddington appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court for “immediate review.” He claimed that the holdout juror was “biased against the mentally ill.” Grace said this charge had “no factual basis at all,” and the court denied it.

Clearly, some female jurors were furious at the male holdout. According to CNN’s Jean Casarez, when the mistrial was declared, one female juror “was in despair as she shook her head, while another angrily clenched her fists. Another woman was so distraught that she could not open her eyes… another dismayed female juror pursed her lips.”

Regarding Reddington’s antics outside the courthouse, Grace said that he threw a “fit” and displayed “sour grapes” with his complaints. In contrast, Grace praised the holdout juror who “stood strong” and refused to “bend to the will of the other jurors when it’s against your conscience.”

After the mistrial, Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said he is undecided on whether to retry the case. Reddington predicts Cruz will not want to retry the case “because he’s going to lose.”

Grace has another viewpoint. She believes “this will be retried again...every defense attorney that comes on the air says, oh, no. It’s not going to be retried…Well, you know what? Retrials work in the favor of the state. So, buckle up. It’s going to be a bumpy ride, Reddington.”

The next step is a status hearing on September 29, and Judge Sullivan said he wants the case retried “sooner rather than later.”