Eleven to One and Still No Verdict: What the Lindsay Clancy Mistrial Really Means
By Lex Tecnica attorney, Tabetha Nakagawa, Esq.
Imagine sitting through more than five weeks of testimony, hearing from dozens of witnesses, reviewing exhibits, listening to competing experts, and then spending nearly 40 hours deliberating with eleven other jurors. Eleven jurors ultimately agree. However, one does not. So, who wins? As the recent Lindsay Clancy trial demonstrates, sometimes the answer is nobody.
The Lindsay Clancy mistrial was declared on September 4, 2026, when a Massachusetts judge found that the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. The jury had deliberated for seven days and was reportedly divided 11–1, with a single juror refusing to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity.
The result generated plenty of headlines, but it also highlighted a legal term that is frequently misunderstood by laypeople who do not generally spend their day-to-day lives inside of a courtroom: a mistrial. So, what exactly is a mistrial? Perhaps more importantly, what happens after a mistrial is declared?
Lindsay Clancy Mistrial: What Happened at Trial?
Clancy was charged with three counts of first-degree murder arising from the deaths of her three young children in January 2023.
The central dispute at trial was not whether Clancy caused her children’s deaths, as that issue was undisputed. Clancy’s defense team instead argued that she was not criminally responsible because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time. Therefore, she could not be held guilty by reason of insanity. However, the prosecutors disputed that characterization and argued that her actions were deliberate.
After several weeks of testimony, the case was submitted to twelve jurors. That is where things got complicated. Throughout the course of the deliberations, the jury repeatedly informed the judge that it was unable to reach a unanimous decision. According to notes from the jury and accounts following the trial, eleven jurors favored finding Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, while one juror disagreed.
Eventually, the judge concluded that further deliberations were unlikely to produce a unanimous verdict and declared a mistrial.
What Exactly is a Mistrial?
Despite how the word sounds, a mistrial is not the same thing as an acquittal. It is also not a conviction. In simple terms, a mistrial means that the trial ended without producing a legally valid resolution of the case. In other words, the trial ended before a final verdict could be reached.
Now, mistrials can happen for a number of reasons. For example, a serious procedural error could occur during trial, inadmissible and highly prejudicial evidence could inadvertently reach the jury, or some other circumstance could make it impossible to fairly continue the proceeding. Another common reason is exactly what happened in Clancy’s case, which resulted in a hung (or deadlocked) jury, where the jury was unable to come to a unanimous decision.
In a criminal case like Clancy’s, the jury must unanimously agree on its verdict. Thus, eleven out of twelve jurors are simply not enough to obtain a conviction. That can seem strange to someone watching from outside the courtroom. After all, if eleven people agree and only one person disagrees, wouldn’t the majority win? Not in a criminal jury trial.
In a criminal trial, each juror has an individual obligation to evaluate the evidence and apply the law. Because someone’s life and freedom is on the line, a verdict cannot be reached just by receiving a majority vote. Thus, if the jurors ultimately cannot reach the required unanimous decision, the judge may determine that the jury is deadlocked and declare a mistrial.
Does a Mistrial Mean the Charges Are Dismissed?
No. This is probably one of the biggest misconceptions surrounding a mistrial. When the judge in Clancy’s case declared a mistrial, Clancy was not determined to be either guilty or not guilty. Instead, the proceeding ended without a verdict.
As a general matter, when a mistrial results from a deadlocked jury, prosecutors may retry the defendant without violating the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. In practical terms, that can mean starting over with a new jury and trying the case again. However, the prosecutors may also decide not to retry the case.
So, Does the Entire Trial Just Disappear?
Not exactly. The mistrial does not erase what happened. Both sides now know significantly more about the case than they did before trial. They know which witnesses performed well. They know how experts were challenged on cross-examination. They know which arguments generated questions. They know where evidentiary disputes may arise. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly here, they have at least some insight into how one group of twelve people viewed the evidence as presented.
Despite having this knowledge, a new jury would be selected and would be required to independently evaluate the evidence presented at a new trial if prosecutors decide that they want to retry the case. In that sense, the courtroom process largely starts all over again.
About the Author: Tabetha Nakagawa is an attorney at Lex Tecnica whose practice includes corporate law, labor and employment law, litigation, government and municipal law, and real estate law. A Las Vegas native and graduate of the William S. Boyd School of Law, she is committed to providing practical, strategic legal guidance with a strong focus on client service.
Comments