A mistrial was my prediction, because I think this has been an inherently difficult case to decide and reasonable people can differ. It involves an especially heinous and heartbreaking crime, the murder of three young children by their mother. But I believe there nevertheless is reasonable doubt about Lindsay Clancy’s mental state at the time of the killings (see my previous posts on the case).

What might happen in a second trial? Perhaps a plea deal of some sort; it’s very hard to say.

However, I was surprised to read yesterday that there is apparently only a single juror who is holding out:

The trial of Lindsay Clancy — which has captivated the nation since July — took a bombshell turn on Thursday when it was revealed that there was one juror who disagreed with the rest following 36 hours of intense deliberation.

The news, which came via a note from the forewoman that a single holdout “refuses to listen to the law” on reasonable doubt, left Clancy’s lawyer Kevin Reddington visibly raging — and demanding the person be kicked off the 12-person jury and replaced with an alternate.

The judge did not grant that demand. But it sounds as though the holdout is for a guilty verdict and the rest are not – although, as I’ve said before, I don’t see how Clancy goes free and I don’t think she will, whatever the verdict.

The law in Massachusetts on this is very unusual – in fact, I think it is singular. This is how it works [emphasis mine]:

Once the defense raises the issue of the accused’s mental state at the time of the crime, prosecutors bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible, said Daniel Medwed, a university distinguished professor of law.

“In Massachusetts, we don’t typically use the term ‘insanity defense,’” Medwed said, citing the stigma that attaches to the word “insanity.” Instead, it’s referred to as “lack of criminal responsibility.” …

In Massachusetts, the defense may apply when a person’s mental condition prevents them from understanding or controlling their actions at the time of an alleged crime, including during an episode of psychosis. A qualifying mental disease or defect also need not fit a specific medical diagnosis.

You can see how this might lead to a situation in which a holdout juror refuses to listen to the law on reasonable doubt. That’s because the law on this in Massachusetts is very much tilted in favor of the defendant. In other states, the burden of proof for lack of criminal responsibility is different:

In many jurisdictions, insanity is an affirmative defense, meaning the burden falls on the defense to prove that a defendant had “a mental disease or defect” that prevented them from understanding the nature of their actions, Medwed said. But that is not the case in Massachusetts, he said.

Procedurally, that means the defense “doesn’t have to do as much” in the way of persuading jurors compared with other states, according to Medwed.

However, an affirmative defense doesn’t have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It needs to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence, defending on the jurisdiction.

The state of things as I write these words is this:

The judge in Lindsay Clancy’s trial has given the defense one hour to make an emergency appeal before declaring a mistrial. …

A filing from Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney has been submitted to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, according to the clerk’s office.

And the court is on lunch break.