Jurors in Lindsay Clancy murder trial head into seventh day of deliberations after 2 deadlock notes

Lindsay Clancy’s defense team filed a motion to Judge William Sullivan on Friday asking that there be no more sidebars for the remainder of the triple-murder trial, and that all further proceedings be handled in open court.

The motion was filed as jurors in the murder trial were about to head into their seventh day of deliberations at Plymouth Superior Court after proceedings ended Thursday with the defense calling for the removal of one juror.

The jury submitted a question after the lunch break Thursday; while Sullivan did not read the note in court, it appeared to have to do with reasonable doubt. He instead repeated his instructions on the definition of reasonable doubt and said each juror was brought in individually and asked whether they could follow his instructions before they were sent back to continue deliberations.

“They’ve said at this point that they can,” Sullivan said. “That was specifically addressed towards the specific question, and that’s what I’m doing.”

Sullivan sent everyone home for the day around 4 p.m.

Just after 9 a.m. Friday, Sullivan allowed both the defense and the prosecution to argue how they think the judge should proceed with the juror who was apparently causing a holdup for the jury. While Sullivan did not confirm, defense attorney Kevin Reddington referenced a second note that might have been issued to the judge on the same issue just before dismissal Thursday.

The prosecution suggested there be no further questioning of the jury and that the judge send them to continue deliberations, saying the juror has “no indication of lack of impartiality or bias or extraneous influence, and no indication of inability to deliberate.”

But Reddington disagreed, and argued that the juror appears to have a personal issue that is hindering them from being able to deliberate fairly, and that the juror should be replaced with an alternate. He even suggested the juror has been dishonest under oath.

Sullivan declined to throw the juror out and said there is no need for a further inquiry of that juror, adding that “the discharge of a deliberating juror is a sensitive undertaking, fraught with potential error.”

Reddington objected, and asked Sullivan to give the jurors a harsher reminder of the law, saying the judge’s reading of the reasonable doubt law on Thursday was “soft.”

“What do you want me to do? Get a brass band?” Sullivan shot back angrily. “The fact that I perhaps didn’t give it my full inflection — I’m sorry about that. I’m not an actor. I’ve just given the instructions.”

Jurors issued deadlock notes to Sullivan on Tuesday and Wednesday , prompting the judge to issue what’s known as the Tuey-Rodriguez instruction, stating that a verdict is “preferable.” He then sent the group of nine women and three men back to deliberate for a final time.

Based on Massachusetts law, a judge can only send a jury back for deliberations twice before declaring a mistrial, unless jurors consent to further deliberations. If the jury returns with a third deadlock note, Sullivan will likely declare a mistrial.

A question from the jury on Thursday afternoon prompted a sidebar with Sullivan and the attorneys — which appeared to upset Reddington.

It was not immediately clear what was said during the private conversation, but Reddington appeared animated and waved papers aggressively during the discussion, according to two members of the NBC News team in court. Reddington then walked over to Clancy, who looked upset, and wheeled her over to be included in the conversation.

After the jury was dismissed for the day, Reddington alleged in court that one juror “refuses to listen to the law that you have given him or her on reasonable doubt.” He suggested that the “soft” instructions from Sullivan were not sufficient, and called for the removal of that juror.

Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague then argued that there was “no way to determine what the deliberations are.” She said she felt the judge’s actions in response to the note were appropriate.

The motion filed Friday suggests the defense wants the judge to read out all further jury questions and notes in open court, rather than keeping them private in sidebar.

On Thursday, Reddington told reporters, “I want the public to know what’s going on.”

While Reddington has told reporters outside the court that he is ready for a retrial as early as next week should this one end with a hung jury, he clarified Thursday after court it was not the result he wanted.

“Why would I want a mistrial? I kicked the s--- out of their case,” he said.

Prosecutors, however, have not indicated whether they are interested in retrying the case should it end in a mistrial.

The jury must decide whether Clancy is criminally responsible for killing her three children, Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months. She is accused of strangling each of them to death using exercise bands before she threw herself out of her second-story window in a suicide attempt that left her paralyzed from the waist down.

Reddington has argued that Clancy was compelled to act on auditory hallucinations that commanded her to carry out the killings, a symptom of postpartum psychosis, which he said she was experiencing at the time.

The prosecution, though, has said that Clancy was not in psychosis when she killed her children. They say she planned out their killings and was aware of what she was doing when she murdered them. They have been pushing for a first-degree murder conviction, which would carry a life sentence for Clancy.

The jury can also convict Clancy of lesser charges — second-degree murder or manslaughter — or deem her not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility.