Patrick Clancy held out hope for 8-month-old son after Lindsay Clancy strangled him, siblings — but 'he died in my arms'



Patrick Clancy held out hope for his 8-month-old son Callan after Lindsay Clancy strangled him and his siblings — 5-year-old Cora and 3-year-old Dawson — in January 2023, according to a "60 Minutes" interview that aired Sunday.

He said he returned to his Duxbury, Massachusetts, home from an errand to find Lindsay lying in the back yard; her throat and wrists were cut — and she was paralyzed after jumping from an upstairs window, CBS News reported.

'There was a time where I didn't think I would live to see my 35th birthday. And I was completely fine with it.'

Patrick, 36, said he found his children strangled in the basement; Cora and Dawson were dead — but Callan was hanging on and was airlifted to Boston Children's Hospital, the news network noted.

"I really thought there was a chance that Callan would live," Patrick said in the interview. "I remember just thinking, 'Just give me one. Just give me one kid, and I would raise him as best I could, and I would give him the best life I possibly could. I'd tell him about his brother and sister.' And I was holding out hope for that."

Callan's heart continued to beat for four days, according to "60 Minutes."

"I got to hold him. I got to lay down next to him," Patrick revealed. "And he died in my arms."

In the following days, CBS News said Patrick wrote tributes to each of his three children — and decided to publicly forgive Lindsay, who's now his ex-wife.

"I saw headlines that said, you know, 'Killer Mom,' and 'Baby Murderer,' 'Monster.' And none of them were accurate," Patrick noted in the interview. "I believe that it was her mental illness that caused that. So I shared those words."

The news network said Lindsay never asked Patrick for forgiveness, but Patrick gave it to her anyway.

CBS News said Patrick and Lindsay both brought medical malpractice lawsuits against health care providers who treated Lindsay — and while some have denied wrongdoing, others haven't yet responded to the claims.

Patrick noted to "60 Minutes" that he believes he "did the best I could with what I had at the time. And I live with the outcome. I live with it every day."

He also shared that shortly after his children's deaths "there was a day where I, really without thinking, I drove by their school, and it was at the exact time that all of their friends were getting dropped off, and I ... just couldn't be there anymore."

RELATED: Lindsay Clancy murder trial hits huge speed bump (UPDATE)

JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP/Getty Images

Patrick was asked in the interview if he had suicidal thoughts. His reply? "There was a time where I didn't think I would live to see my 35th birthday. And I was completely fine with it."

He added that he no longer could stay in Duxbury, and in April 2023, he moved to New York City where he sought anonymity, CBS News reported.

"Five weeks after I moved to New York, on May 26, I had to figure out how I'm going to celebrate Callan's first birthday," Patrick shared in the interview, his eyes welling up. "And how do you celebrate your son's first birthday months after he's passed away? And so I go to St. Patrick's Cathedral, I light a candle, and I said, 'I love you buddy.' And I walk out on 5th Avenue, and I stared crying my eyes out. And nobody cared ... and I thought, 'This is where I need to be. I can grieve.'"

Patrick added that before moving from the family house in Duxbury, he kept a number of items that reminded him of his children: Interviewer Ross Douthat mentioned a stuffed "baby sloth that Cora carried everywhere; a photo of Callan wearing a bow tie almost bigger than him; [and] Dawson's battered and beloved helicopter."

You can view the entire "60 Minutes" interview here; the below clip is a summary of its content:

RELATED: Lindsay Clancy murder trial fireworks: Defense attorney wants 1 juror kicked out, tells judge his jury instruction is 'soft'

By this April, Patrick was remarried to Rachel Danis, a New York City fertility doctor, CBS News said.

Danis told the news network that she met Patrick in January 2024 in a New York City run club and got to know each other over coffee.

"Pat pulled out his phone to pay, and I noticed this adorable photo of children as the wallpaper," Danis shared with CBS News. "And I just asked, 'Who are those cuties?' And Pat said, 'Those are my kids.' And then I think I asked if they live in Massachusetts, and Pat said, 'They died.' And this is just at the cashier."

Danis noted in the "60 Minutes" interview that she tried to "take some of the weight from Pat."

"I can't bring his kids back," she noted. "But if I can honor them and allow Pat to grieve but also just continue to honor them in the present, I guess that's all I can do."

What's more, the couple shared with "60 Minutes" that they're starting a family — and Patrick is preparing to one day tell his future child about their older siblings, Cora, Dawson, and Callan.

"I think every parent can agree, you have different relationships with your kids, but they're all your kids," Patrick said, according to CBS News. "And I can't wait to tell them about their brothers and sister."

During Lindsay Clancy's murder trial over the summer, Patrick testified and found himself at the center of an online swarm of sleuths and influencers dissecting every detail of the case, developing theories that portray him as uncaring, unfaithful — and even the murderer of his children, CBS News reported.

"It's painful to see. And it makes it difficult to be in public, and it's possible that some of those people, after seeing lie after lie after lie, they start to believe it, and that's what we're left with," Patrick said in the "60 Minutes" interview.

CBS News reported that one of the catalysts for theories about Patrick was his apparent stoicism on the witness stand, but Patrick said testifying was difficult — and that he experienced a "massive, traumatic panic attack" on the second day of his testimony.

"They put me in an ambulance," Patrick noted in the interview. "They offered me some medication, but I said, 'I don't want it, because I want to go back, and I want to finish this so I can be done with this.' And I went back, and I finished the testimony."

Lindsay Clancy's trial ended with a hung jury earlier this month.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Pro-life' cannot stop at opposing abortion



On August 10, Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) signed Chapter 188, “An Act Prioritizing Patient Access to Care,” changing state law governing abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy. The new law removes the previous list of specific circumstances and allows a physician to perform an abortion based on the physician’s professional judgment.

I understand that heartbreaking medical situations exist, and those families deserve compassion, dignity, and excellent care. But the law also raises a larger question that America cannot keep avoiding: While government works to expand access to abortion, are we working just as hard to expand a woman’s ability to choose motherhood?

Saying 'choose life' is only the beginning. We must be prepared to answer the next questions.

I founded Auntie Angie’s House because I have met women who did not need another political argument. They needed help.

Some needed a safe place to live. Some needed food, transportation, prenatal support, or help getting back on their feet. Others simply needed someone to stand beside them long enough to believe that an unexpected or difficult pregnancy did not mean their future was over.

Today, Auntie Angie’s House counts 101 babies whose mothers chose to continue their pregnancies with support from our work.

That number means more to me than any slogan ever could.

One hundred and one babies means 101 individual lives, 101 stories, and 101 reminders that what looks impossible in one frightening moment can look very different when a mother is surrounded by real support.

This is why I believe the abortion debate is incomplete.

We hear constantly about protecting “choice.” Then let us be serious about creating choices.

A woman should have the choice to keep her baby without becoming homeless. She should have the choice to continue school or work. She should have access to prenatal care, transportation, child care, food, safe housing, and postpartum support.

She should not feel that abortion is the only answer because she is poor, alone, frightened, or unsupported.

If we truly trust women, then we should trust them enough to invest in every option available to them, including motherhood.

That is the model we have tried to build at Auntie Angie’s House. We do not serve women by shaming them. We meet practical needs so that fear does not have to make the decision.

RELATED: Chelsea Clinton put a price tag on abortion

Anthony Kwan/Getty Images for MEBO Group

Our work was recognized by Fulton County with a proclamation declaring May 1 “Auntie Angie’s Day.” I am grateful for that recognition, but the real accomplishment is the mother who arrived afraid and later held her baby with hope. It is the woman who realized she was not alone.

Government should learn from those stories.

Imagine if every state that devoted political energy to expanding abortion access brought the same urgency to maternal housing. Imagine if pregnant women in crisis could immediately access temporary housing, prenatal care, job assistance, and postpartum services.

Imagine if no woman felt pressured toward abortion because she could not see a financially survivable path to motherhood.

I am pro-life, but I also believe the pro-life movement has a responsibility beyond opposing abortion. Saying “choose life” is only the beginning. We must be prepared to answer the next questions: Where will she live? How will she eat? Who will help with the baby?

Massachusetts has made a policy decision about abortion after 24 weeks. People will debate that law from every political and moral direction. My challenge is broader: If lawmakers believe women deserve support in making difficult pregnancy decisions, then support cannot begin and end at the door of an abortion provider.

America should make an equally powerful commitment to the woman who wants to keep her child. I can point to 101 reasons why. At Auntie Angie’s House, those reasons have names, faces, mothers, and futures.

The next woman facing an impossible decision deserves to know there is another door she can walk through. She deserves more than a political talking point. She deserves help.

Under guise of 'math help,' HS pushed girl's gender transition — and state took her away, says her Catholic parents' lawyer



Under the guise of "math help," a Massachusetts high school pushed for a girl's gender transition — and soon the state took her away, her Catholic parents' lawyer tells Blaze News.

Indeed, the Trump administration has launched an investigation into the girl's school district after reports that school officials "allegedly facilitated" her "gender transition" without her parents’ "knowledge or consent."

'Sophie should not only be returned to her parents, but there should be civil and criminal penalties for such misconduct by government agents.'

Joseph and Arlene Kutzko said their daughter Sophie has been in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families since December 2024 — when she was 15 — after the Kutzkos refused to recognize her as a boy or call her by male names and pronouns, the Boston Herald reported, adding that the state also issued a permanent restraining order against the Kutzkos.

Vernadette Broyles, the Kutzkos' attorney, told Blaze News that the parents were kept in the dark and told that Sophie was getting "math help" at Algonquin Regional High School in Northborough while a counselor allegedly "socially transitioned" her — so the parents were "deceived, actually."

"They're a beautiful family," Broyles told Blaze News, adding that "it's been hell on earth" for the Kutzkos as they do battle with three separate courts in their quest to regain custody of her and are stretched to the limit financially.

Meanwhile, Democrat Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey told the Herald that the gender issue has nothing to do with why the Kutzkos' daughter was taken from them.

“Let me be clear about the facts in that matter," Healey said, according to the paper. "First of all, DCF did not remove the child because of a health issue or a gender-affirming care issue. DCF removed the child after there were criminal charges filed against the parents, including the father. As you know, DCF is responsible for the care and well-being of kids, and that’s what happened in this instance.”

But Broyles countered to the Herald that physical and sexual abuse charges against the parents were deemed unfounded in juvenile court, and there was no finding of guilt in criminal court following a non-guilty disposition with prosecutors: “It’s very dishonest, because there are no standing charges against them."

Meanwhile, as the Kutzkos' legal fees ballooned past $150,000, Broyles noted to the paper that an unidentified adult allegedly helped Sophie get a restraining order against her parents when she had been in state custody for nearly a year — and that the order still stands.

Broyles noted to Blaze News that the restraining order includes "no contact" and that "it's my understanding that [the Department of Children and Families] supported" the order.

What's more, an allegation of neglect against the Kutzkos still looms — and "it's never been explained to them," Broyles told Blaze News.

But Broyles said she has a good idea what it's all about.

Broyles told Blaze News the "implication" is that the neglect allegation has to do with the Kutzkos' refusal to agree to their daughter's desire for a medical gender transition — "but Massachusetts doesn't want to say that."

Meanwhile, despite no finding of guilt against the parents, the Kutzkos have "not been allowed to see or talk to their daughter or observe her for 20 months," Broyles told Blaze News.

"You've got to be kidding me," their attorney added to Blaze News. "How are these people so dangerous to her? ... I believe we have a state that, at its core, believes these parents are unsafe, [and] they are hiding behind a nebulous neglect. Nothing else adds up."

Despite Sophie having been a "very faithful Catholic girl" and "so active in the church," Broyles told Blaze News that "girls go down rabbit holes that suck them into this belief system" counter to parents' wishes, and that's "probably what happened to" Sophie, while those in custody of her are "championing" her gender transition. To wit: Broyles also told Blaze News that Sophie has been placed on birth control, is living in a male facility, and "now they want to give her testosterone," which her father — a scientist — is totally against.

"She's probably pretty manipulated by now," Broyles told Blaze News.

RELATED: Blaze News investigates: Democrats attack parents and parental rights in Colorado

C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, added to Blaze News that the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families "is an unelected and unaccountable government bureaucracy with a long and disreputable history of arbitrary, autocratic, and authoritarian behavior, hostile to both parental rights and religious freedom."

Doyle also told Blaze News that the DCF's actions against the Kutzkos amount to "nothing less than state-sponsored kidnapping and government-inflicted child abuse. It is a direct assault, by rogue state actors, on parental authority, family integrity, and constitutionally protected religious liberty."

Doyle also argued that "Sophie should not only be returned to her parents, but there should be civil and criminal penalties for such misconduct by government agents."

As for the Trump administration's involvement, the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Privacy Policy Office on Thursday launched an investigation into the Public Schools of Northborough and Southborough in Massachusetts to determine whether the school district violated the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act in relation to the Kutzkos' case.

“Parents have a right to know what is happening with their children at school, particularly when it concerns deeply personal matters involving their health and well-being,” said Frank Miller, director of the Student Privacy Policy Office. “These egregious allegations are not an isolated problem. Families deserve answers, and SPPO will thoroughly investigate reports like this and hold any educational institution that violates federal law accountable.”

Algonquin Regional High School and the Northborough-Southborough Regional School District denied all of the Kutzkos' allegations, calling them “baseless” and “grossly insensitive, intrusive, and dangerous toward the child," according to the Herald.

The paper said it has requested comment from the DCF.

The Kutzkos' next court appearance is scheduled for Oct. 29, the Herald said.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democrats Admit They Want To Bring Third-Worlders To America To Put Them On Welfare

The Democrats only care about the public charge rule now because it threatens the patronage system that keeps them in power.

Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer appeals directly to Trump after mistrial — but there's a major problem



The attorney for Lindsay Clancy is begging the most powerful man on the planet to intercede on behalf of his client.

On Friday, Judge William Sullivan of Plymouth Superior Court in Massachusetts declared a mistrial in Clancy's case after jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict about whether to hold her criminally responsible in the deaths of her three children. Her defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, did not deny that she strangled the three children but argued that she acted out of postpartum psychosis and overmedication rather than criminal malice.

'Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady, the type of person she is, what she's been through.'

The case has captivated the nation, and even President Donald Trump weighed in on it. "She did a horrible, horrible thing. Can't be worse," he said shortly after the mistrial was declared, adding that there will be a "price to pay."

"It's going to be mental institution or jail or something."

During the trial, Reddington described Clancy as "one heck of a mother" who "loved her children." Outside of court, he claimed that "she's very concerned about women's rights" and "the fact that women are pretty much marginalized."

Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz has not yet announced whether the case will be retried.

RELATED: Gloria Steinem is gone. Lindsay Clancy is still here.

On Tuesday, Reddington appeared with George Stephanopoulos on "Good Morning America" and indicated that he might be willing to entertain a plea deal:

I'm willing to listen to Tim. I've known Tim for 30 years. He's a very hard-charging prosecutor, a conservative gentleman. I hope, however, after sitting through this trial and seeing the evidence that was presented from the government as well as from the defense that he would revisit that issue and hopefully would be able to work something out that would be acceptable to both sides.

Reddington also called upon Trump to step in and "pardon" Lindsay Clancy:

I'd like to say that perhaps Donald Trump, who felt compelled to speak out about this case, may very well, Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady, the type of person she is, what she's been through, and consider a pardon.

It is unclear how Trump might be able to pardon Clancy, even if she is convicted.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts charged Clancy, not the federal government. If Cruz decides to retry the case or reach a plea deal, it will still be a state case and not a federal one, so all pardoning powers will rest with the governor of Massachusetts.

Blaze News reached out to the White House and to the office of Gov. Maura Healey (D) for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Lindsay Clancy murder trial hits huge speed bump



The Lindsay Clancy murder trial has just hit a huge speed bump.

The deadlocked Massachusetts jury of nine women and three men on Friday morning — its seventh day of deliberations — delivered a note to Judge William Sullivan in the Plymouth courtroom.

'I would go so far as to reluctantly say that the individual has made a false statement under oath to this court.'

Sullivan read the note aloud, which said, "It is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to."

The jury has twice before indicated that it was deadlocked regarding the fate of Clancy — a 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse — whom the prosecution and defense agreed killed her three young children in 2023. The issue has been whether she is criminally responsible for their deaths due to her mental state, the Associated Press said.

Sullivan asked the prosecution and defense for their thoughts. The prosecution said the jury note would "require a mistrial at this point." The defense disagreed and said the judge should send the jury back to deliberate further.

The judge then stated, "Over the defendant's objection, I'm going to declare a mistrial at this point."

But before the jury could be brought back in, Clancy's defense attorney Kevin Reddington asked Judge Sullivan for a chance to file an emergency appeal to the state supreme court.

Sullivan told Reddington that he'd give him an hour to file a stay for the declaration of the mistrial before the jury is brought back in. The AP said the clock began ticking at 11:30 a.m.

A major issue that surfaced amid Thursday's deliberations was, according to Reddington, that the jury foreperson said "there is one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you have given him or her on reasonable doubt." Reddington then told the judge he wanted that juror removed.

The AP in an earlier story reported that Reddington, after the jury was dismissed Thursday, indicated that Judge Sullivan would question that juror on Friday morning. However, Sullivan on Friday morning first asked the prosecution and defense how they wanted him to deal with the juror issue.

While the prosecution told Sullivan it doesn't want him to question the juror, Reddington pushed back hard.

"This person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not-guilty verdict. He is not being honest with you at the sidebar. I would go so far as to reluctantly say that the individual has made a false statement under oath to this court," Reddington told the judge before adding that "the individual is refusing to apply your instructions on proof beyond a reasonable doubt to allow that jury a verdict of not-guilty."

With that, the prosecution maintained that "we're in no position to judge whether the 11 are right or the one is right."

Sullivan then ruled that he won't question the juror, telling both attorneys there's "no need for inquiry."

That's when things got heated between the defense attorney and the judge.

Reddington told Sullivan, "I would ask that you not just give them, as I described it yesterday, a soft inquiry, will you listen to my instruction. I would ask that you specifically direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and re-instruct them on that forcefully."

The judge replied, "I did that yesterday, didn't I?"

Reddington, in a clipped tone, told Sullivan that "you did it yesterday, you did it soft, you didn't do it forcefully."

The now-annoyed judge shot back, "What do you want me to do, get a brass band? I read the instruction as written by the [Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court]. The fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that, but I'm not an actor. I've just given the instructions."

Reddington argued back: "My point, judge, simply is that you're kind of glossing over the issue. The issue is this juror will not, according to that note, apply the law of reasonable doubt."

Sullivan, more annoyed, replied that "I am specifically not glossing over this issue. I have thought about this issue long and hard. I know the defendant objects, but the characterization that I'm glossing over it ... trust me, that's not the situation. I've been thinking about this for quite a while. I'm going to just give that instruction that they have to follow my instructions. I'm not going to reiterate the reasonable doubt at this point. It may come to that again as we go through it."

The judge concluded his remarks to Reddington with some more humor: "And I'll try and give this with more pizzazz than I gave yesterday, I suppose."

With that, the judge brought the deadlocked jury back into the courtroom and told them no future notes to the court should indicate how the panel stands numerically. In addition, Sullivan told the jury, "I wanted to remind you, as I instructed you earlier, it's you're duty as jurors to accept the law as I stated to you ... you must follow the law as I give it to you, whether you agree with it or not."

He then sent the jury back to further deliberate.

The jury twice told Judge William Sullivan that it couldn't reach a verdict, but Sullivan in both instances told the jury to go back and keep deliberating.

Sullivan told the jurors not to abandon their own convictions just to reach a verdict but also to seriously consider opposing views and reassess their positions if appropriate, the AP said.

The jury was brought back into the courtroom Thursday afternoon, and the judge told the jurors, “I want to remind you that you are required to follow my instructions on the law as I gave you,” the AP noted.

The outlet said the judge added that “it is not enough for prosecutors to show a probability, or even a strong probability, of guilt." The judge also told the jury that proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, according to the AP.

The judge then sent the jury back to continue deliberations — and some in the audience gasped, the outlet said.

RELATED: Lindsay Clancy murder trial fireworks: Defense attorney wants 1 juror kicked out, tells judge his jury instruction is 'soft'

The attorney for Clancy argued that postpartum psychosis led to his client's actions; prosecutors said Clancy knew what she was doing when she strangled 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan Clancy in the basement of their home, the AP said.

After Clancy strangled the children with exercise bands, she jumped from a second-floor window and remains paralyzed from the waist down, the outlet said. Her lawyers said Clancy heard a voice telling her to kill the children so she could end her own life and also had bipolar disorder and postpartum psychosis, a rare mental illness, the AP added. Postpartum psychosis is linked to the stress, sleep deprivation, and hormonal changes that follow childbirth, the outlet noted.

Jurors have heard testimony from relatives and doctors about how Clancy’s mental health declined in the months before the killings and how her treatment included several medications and a short stay in a psychiatric hospital, the AP said, adding that the prosecution's and defense's medical experts reached sharply different conclusions regarding Clancy's psychiatric state.

The prosecution argued that Clancy deliberately sent her then-husband on errands to get him out of the house on the day of the killings, and prosecutors also have questioned the seriousness of her suicide attempt, the AP reported. Patrick Clancy has said in interviews that he forgives his ex-wife, whom he views as ill rather than evil, the outlet also said.

However, prosecutor Jennifer Sprague emphasized to the jury how horrific and cruel the killings were, the AP said: “She left them discarded on the basement floor like broken toys because she was done playing the game. You know to a moral certainty she is guilty.”

A number of sideshows also have captured the spotlight amid the courtroom proceedings.

A 56-year-old woman was arrested Tuesday afternoon outside Plymouth Superior Court and charged with one count of intimidation of a witness, jurors, or person furnishing information in connection with criminal proceedings.

Assistant District Attorney Nicole Piacentini stated at Dawn Light's arraignment Wednesday that it was confirmed she recorded videos that included Clancy jurors exiting the courthouse.

Light, a retired nurse and Clancy supporter, told reporters she was there "to see Lindsay. And I did see her. She was getting picked up by the van,” the AP reported, adding that Light's lawyer Jennifer White called it a “misunderstanding." A not-guilty plea was entered on Light’s behalf, the outlet said.

Light was ordered to stay away from the courthouse grounds, avoid contact with jurors or potential witnesses in the Clancy trial, and refrain from disseminating any photos related to the incident.

The arrest prompted the judge to ask each juror Wednesday if they saw anything that would affect their impartiality, Clancy’s attorney Kevin Reddington told the AP. The judge also opened the day’s proceedings with a warning not to film, follow, contact, or tamper with jurors, the outlet said.

What's more, hundreds of women rallied outside the courthouse earlier in the trial in support of Clancy. Many of her supporters were dressed in pink and lifted up their hands in the shape of hearts.

"I think that every one of us women believe that it could be any one of us," said Renee Kimball, who organized the event. "Any one of us who have dealt with mental health, anxiety, depression, postpartum — I think we just know that any one of us could be sitting in her chair."

Even one of the jurors donned a pink dress, according to a Friday story by Mama the Magazine.

If a mistrial is declared, prosecutors would then have to decide whether to put Clancy on trial again, drop the charges, or try to negotiate a plea deal with her lawyer, the outlet said.

If the jury decides Clancy was criminally responsible for her actions, it could convict her of either murder or manslaughter, the AP said. If she is acquitted, a judge could still order her confined to a mental health facility if an evaluation determines that she poses a danger to the public.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Lindsay Clancy murder trial fireworks: Defense attorney wants 1 juror kicked out, tells judge his jury instruction is 'soft'



Just before a deadlocked Massachusetts jury of nine women and three men Thursday afternoon completed a sixth day of deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial with no verdict, there were fireworks in the Plymouth courtroom.

The prosecution and defense have agreed that Clancy — a 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse — killed her three young children in 2023; the issue has been whether she is criminally responsible for their deaths due to her mental state, the Associated Press said.

'If we come back here in a half-hour with a mistrial because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it’s a shame — it’s a real shame.'

The fireworks started with a lengthy and animated sidebar — a private discussion between the judge and attorneys on both sides. The AP in a separate story called the sidebar "impassioned," with Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington pointing his finger and Judge William Sullivan handing him a document.

As the sidebar stretched past the 10-minute mark, two court officers joined the discussion, which featured Reddington sighing, speaking to the judge, and slicing the air with his hand, the AP reported.

Then jurors began entering the courtroom one by one and were sworn in, after which the judge spoke to each juror, and then they were taken back out of the courtroom, the outlet said, adding that it wasn't clear what was said.

The jury then re-entered the courtroom, and the outlet said the Judge Sullivan told jurors, “I want to remind you that you are required to follow my instructions on the law as I gave you."

Sullivan also said, “It is not enough for prosecutors to show a probability, or even a strong probability, of guilt,” the AP noted, adding that the judge also said proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt. He then sent the jury back to deliberate further — and the outlet said some in the audience gasped.

With the jury out of the courtroom, Reddington spoke in a microphone directly to Sullivan.

“The court has an instruction from the foreperson of that jury — that has been working for a week — now saying there is one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you have given him or her on reasonable doubt,” Reddington said, his voice rising, the AP reported. “I suggest respectfully that the soft instruction that you gave them, saying at the sidebar, can you listen to the law as I instruct you, does not focus on the issue.”

The outlet said Reddington asked the judge to remove the juror in question.

“If we come back here in a half-hour with a mistrial because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it’s a shame — it’s a real shame,” Reddington said, according to the AP.

RELATED: Woman charged with juror intimidation at Clancy trial tells different tale than images on her phone: Prosecutor

But Sullivan said removing a juror from a “deliberating jury is a sensitive undertaking," the outlet reported.

“I don’t feel it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations. I don’t feel it’s appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or 11,” Sullivan said, according to the AP. “At this point, I have asked if they are able to follow instructions. They swore earlier they could. They have said at this point they can.”

Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague said the judge’s instruction was appropriate and no further action was necessary, the outlet noted.

Soon Sullivan called the jury members back into the courtroom and dismissed them until 9 a.m. Friday, at which time they again will resume deliberations.

Outside the courthouse, Reddington expressed hope that the trial will be resolved after the judge questions a juror on Friday, the AP said: “There will be an inquiry by the judge tomorrow at 9 o’clock. There’s a person who has doubt but will not listen to the judge’s instructions.”

Reddington also told reporters outside the courthouse that the jury foreperson’s note identified the holdout juror to the judge, the outlet noted, adding that Reddington is hoping that before the judge questions that juror on Friday, attorneys on both sides will get to argue in the open over the specifics of that inquiry.

Clancy has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in the strangulation deaths of her three children — 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan — in their Duxbury home on Jan. 24, 2023, WBZ-TV reported.

Reddington said his client was not criminally responsible for killing her children because she was overmedicated and suffering from postpartum psychosis, the station reported, adding that prosecutors said Clancy planned the killings and knew right from wrong when she strangled the children.

If the jury convicts Clancy of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or manslaughter, she will go to prison, WBZ said, adding that if jurors find her not guilty by reason of insanity, she will be required to continue her stay at Tewksbury State Hospital, where her case will be reviewed periodically.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Woman charged with juror intimidation at Clancy trial tells different tale than images on her phone: Prosecutor



The 56-year-old Massachusetts woman arrested outside Lindsay Clancy's murder trial appeared in court herself on Wednesday.

According to prosecutors, there is a big disconnect between what Dawn Light of Sutton told the Massachusetts State Police at the time of her arrest and what was allegedly found on her phone.

'It was clear she was filming the jurors.'

MSP confirmed to Blaze News that at approximately 3:40 p.m. on Tuesday, Light was taken into custody and charged with intimidation of a witness, jurors, or person furnishing information in connection with criminal proceedings.

At the time, jurors in the Clancy trial were in the midst of their fourth day of deliberations.

Assistant District Attorney Nicole Piacentini stated at Light's arraignment Wednesday that court officers notified MSP officers in the security detail for the Clancy trial that an individual may have been filming jurors on Tuesday outside the courthouse. Judge William Sullivan had previously prohibited such photography.

Officers approached Light, who was allegedly parked in a restricted area within the employee parking lot behind the courthouse.

Piacentini alleged that when Light was asked whether she was taking pictures or filming anyone inside the parking lot, she "was adamant that she was not. She stated that she was waiting to see if Lindsay Clancy would come out of the building."

RELATED: Torpedoing justice? Woman arrested outside trial of accused killer mom Lindsay Clancy

A cursory examination of Light's phone initially appeared to confirm her claim. However, when police checked Light's deleted photos, they allegedly found at least one video of people exiting the courthouse.

"State police then spoke with court officers who were then able to confirm that those individuals in those videos were the jurors in regards to the Lindsay Clancy trial," claimed Piacentini.

"Although she states that she was looking for Lindsay Clancy to come out of the courthouse, it was clear that she was filming the jurors," the prosecutor further claimed.

Prosecutors requested among other things that Light be held on $50,000 cash bail, barred from the court property, and altogether kept away from the jurors.

Jennifer White, Light's attorney, told Judge Shelby Smith, "This is a complete misunderstanding, Your Honor."

"My client was seeking a picture of Ms. Clancy and had no intention of any interaction with the jurors," added the attorney, who emphasized that the shutterbug wasn't a flight risk and had no prior record.

The judge denied the prosecutor's request for the $50,000 bail but ordered Light to stay away from the courthouse grounds, avoid contact with jurors or potential witnesses in the Lindsay Clancy trial, and refrain from disseminating any photos related to the incident.

Light, a self-described "crime junkie" who apparently attended several days of Clancy's trial, told the CT Insider, "I don't know how I intimidated anyone."

She is scheduled to appear in court again on October 15.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!