Brandon Drenon

Image source, Getty Images

Kevin Reddington has been here before.

Since the 80s, the Massachusetts-based lawyer hired by Lindsay Clancy has been defending women accused of murder.

He’s made a name for himself along the way.

Not only for defending the longtime girlfriend of notorious mob boss Whitey Bulger, played by Johnny Depp in the movie Black Mass. Not only for his against-all-odds victories, like the acquittal he won in a case where a woman was accused of killing her boyfriend after stabbing his eyes out.

But he's also gained some fame from his courtroom antics, partly on display this week in the Clancy trial.

On Thursday, in a heated discussion with the judge, Reddington raised his voice, slammed a stack of papers, then sat in agitation, angrily adjusting his coffee mug.

For those who have followed his career, it was a watered-down version of Reddington.

In another courtroom, in 1989, he reportedly threw a set of ninja stars across the room to demonstrate their lethality.

Pratiksha Ghildial
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

Image source, Getty Images

In the past few weeks, the atmosphere outside the court has acquired a life of its own.

By 08:30 in the morning, there were almost 80 people lined up to get a peek at the proceedings that have captured the imagination of many Americans.

The crowd included journalists, maternal mental health advocates, supporters, and even critics.

One woman told me she was “conflicted” but was there because she was interested in the issue. Another said, “I am here for Lindsay".

As a reminder, Lindsay Clancy is charged with three counts of first-degree murder.

While the jury deliberates, here is a reminder of the options they could choose from if they were to eventually reach a verdict in this case.

• Clancy could be found guilty of first-degree murder. In the state of Massachusetts, first-degree murder - the intentional and premeditated killing of another person - carries a mandatory life in prison sentence without the possibility of parole
• Clancy could be found guilty of a lesser charge including second-degree murder - committed with malice or extreme recklessness, but without prior planning - or manslaughter - unintentionally killing "by wanton and reckless conduct". In either of those instances she would face time behind bars
• If Clancy is found not guilty by reason of insanity she will not be set free. She'll go to a psychiatric hospital where her status will be periodically reviewed. She could remain in hospital for life

Failure to come to a unanimous verdict could result in a mistrial.

Read more here.

After the judge's latest instruction, the jurors have headed back for more deliberations.

They have already been debating the case for over 35 hours for six days, telling the judge twice that they are deadlocked.

Jurors have been brought back into the courtroom and are undergoing the routine process of swearing that they have not read anything external that could influence their decision.

Judge William Sullivan is reminding them that they have to follow the laws and says that if the jury have a future note about a specific juror, they should not state the number associated with that juror.

"It is your duty as jurors to accept the law as I stated to you," he says. "You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree with it or not."

Image source, Pool

Ione Wells
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

I'm in court here as the judge and Clancy's defence have gotten into a bit of a stand-off.

“What do you want me to do?” the judge says, after the defence asked him to remind jurors yet again to follow the law on reasonable doubt.

“I did that yesterday!” the judge said. He is keen to reiterate that he isn’t “glossing over” this issue that has arisen.

There are laughs in the court as he says he’ll instruct the jury again with more “pizzazz” today.

We're now hearing another exchange between Reddington and the judge, who continues to push for a harsher censure of the juror in question.

He asks the judge not to give the person a "soft inquiry" like he did yesterday, and instead re-instruct them "forcefully" on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

"I did that yesterday," the judge says. "What do you want me to do, get a brass band?"

"I'm not an actor," he adds.

Reddington says the judge is "glossing over" the issue.

Image source, Getty Images

After the prosecutor's defence of the juror, Judge William Sullivan says he must take the "utmost caution" to avoid "invading the province of the jury".

He says jurors can only be discharged for reasons personal to them, and not issues with the case or their fellow jurors.

Sullivan adds that he already gave an instruction about reasonable doubt yesterday - that the law does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt.

The note from the foreperson does not indicate that the juror refuses to follow the law, he adds. The judge says he questioned the jurors and they confirmed they can follow the law.

He says he will give them an additional instruction about following the law.

Prosecutors for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts say no jurors should be removed.

The lawyer says the jury has deliberated for a long time contends that the juror shouldn't be removed as requested by Clancy's lawyers.

"There is no indication of a lack of impartiality, or bias, or extraneous influence," the prosecutor says. "What we have here is a note that indicates a disagreement and that is deliberation."

Image source, Pool

Image source, Pool

Clancy's attorney Kevin Reddington is speaking before the court now.

In regards to the issue with a juror yesterday, he says every defendant is "entitled to have a juror who is true to their oath".

Reddington says it seems like one person is refusing to apply the law of reasonable doubt for "personal" reasons.

The lawyer says he's never seen a jury foreperson speak up about an issue like this, adding that the foreperson indicated that the juror in question has acknowledged having doubt about the case but refuses to apply it to the verdict.

Judge William Sullivan has now taken the bench and court proceedings have started.

Conversations picked up where they left off yesterday - addressing a note from the jury which seemed to indicate one juror was apparently holding up deliberations.

We will bring you the key lines here and you can click watch live above.

Image source, Getty Images

Lindsay Clancy is a 36-year-old Massachusetts mother and former labour and delivery nurse who is on trial for the murder of her three young children in 2023.

Clancy is accused of strangling her kids - Cora, five, Dawson, three, and Callan, who was eight months - with fitness bands in their Massachusetts home before jumping out of a second-floor window in January 2023.

The jump paralysed Clancy from the waist down and she has attended the trial in a wheelchair.

She is charged with three counts of first-degree murder and three counts of assault and battery. Prosecutors allege she made a calculated decision to intentionally kill her children.

Lawyers for Clancy, who does not dispute carrying out the killings but has pleaded not guilty to murder charges, say she was experiencing postpartum psychosis at the time.

Throughout her murder trial, Clancy has been held at Tewksbury Hospital, a state-run public psychiatric hospital in Massachusetts, about 20 miles (32km) from Boston.

Her trial, which began in July and which has been live streamed to the public, has stirred intense national interest as well as debate about postpartum depression and the mental health of new mothers.

Ione Wells
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

Media have just been let into the courtroom this morning.

Clancy is here, dressed in an olive long-sleeved top, currently in conversation with her lawyer.

Lindsay Clancy is accused of murdering her three small children at their Massachusetts home in January 2023.

Clancy, a 36-year-old former nurse, jumped from a second-floor window after the killings, leaving her paralysed.

She does not dispute killing her children - Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, eight months. But the defence argues that Clancy was experiencing postpartum psychosis - a severe mental health condition that can develop after childbirth - and that for this reason she should not be held criminally responsible for the killings.

The prosecution claimed Clancy made a calculated, intentional decision to kill them and knew right from wrong in that moment. She is charged with three counts of first-degree murder.

After hearing weeks of testimony from dozens of witnesses, the jury began deliberating in the high-profile case last Thursday. They have not yet been able to reach a verdict.

Ione Wells
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer Kevin Reddington has just arrived at the court.

According to the BBC’s US News partner CBS News, he just filed an emergency motion to the court requesting that there be no further side bars, which are private conversations between lawyers and the judge.

Instead, he asks all proceedings now be handled in open court.

The judge still needs to review that motion and it's unclear if he will approve it.

Since Lindsay Clancy's murder trial began more than a month ago, we've heard from both prosecutors and defence lawyers, as well as more than 70 witnesses - including medical practitioners and members of Clancy's family - who have testified about the circumstances surrounding the 2023 killings of her three children.

Here are some of the key things we've heard in the trial:

Clancy's defence team does not dispute that she killed her children, but has argued that she should not be held criminally responsible as she was experiencing postpartum psychosis at the time.

The prosecution has argued that they were murdered, that Clancy's actions were premeditated and intentional, and that she does not meet the legal definition of insanity.

Members of Clancy's family, including her ex-husband, mother and ex-mother-in-law have all testified that she was a loving mother who was experiencing a serious mental breakdown.

Forensic psychologists spoke on behalf of both the defence - arguing Clancy did not understand the wrongfulness of her acts - and the prosecution, arguing Clancy was mentally unwell but understood killing her kids was wrong.

Ione Wells
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

“11-1” is a phrase I’ve heard a lot in the queue here outside the court where this trial is taking place. People are assuming that is how the twelve-person jury is currently split in opinion.

That’s because of a dramatic moment yesterday where Lindsay Clancy’s defence lawyer accused one juror of not following the law that someone must be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt, after a note to the judge said the person wasn’t following his instructions.

But, just a reminder, we - and the lawyers - don’t actually know yet what the jury think, which way they’re swaying, or what the split is.

All we know for certain is they’ve been deadlocked so far.

Image source, /Pool via REUTERS

Day six of jury deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy trial ended much like the five before - with the jury reporting that they were unable to reach a verdict and a direction from the judge to continue trying.

However, there was one complication: a note from the jury that one of its own members was holding up proceedings.

Here's what happened on Thursday:

• Clancy's attorney Kevin Reddington called for the removal of a juror after a note to the judge said they were not following the judges directions around reasonable doubt
• The judge denied this request but brought the jury back for renewed instructions on reasonable doubt
• Clancy appeared emotional, putting her head in her lap after news came in of the jury's note
• Conversation appeared tense in the courtroom, with Clancy's lawyer slamming down papers and crossing his arms in frustration during conversations with the judge
• It's unclear if there's a split in the jury room. But Reddington told press that the singled out juror would be "identified" in an "inquiry" by the judge Friday morning

If no unanimous verdict is reached, the judge could declare a mistrial, meaning proceedings would end without a verdict.

Sakshi Venkatraman
US reporter

While long deliberations may add complications, they're not entirely unusual, former federal prosecutor Mark Chutkow tells me.

"Six days of jury deliberation after a six-week trial with complex mental health issues is not unusual," he told me on Thursday.

What is interesting, according to Chutkow, is the defence's adamant request to remove the juror who was seemingly holding up proceedings.

As a reminder, the jury sent a note to the judge yesterday that one of 12 members was not properly following the judge's instructions. Clancy's lawyer asked to remove that person, which the judge denied.

It "suggests that the attorneys for both sides might think that the holdout juror is the only one favoring conviction and the rest of the jurors favor acquittal", Chutkow tells me.

That may or may not be the case, Chutkow adds, noting that the defence may have filed that motion looking ahead to an appeal.

The jury is set to resume deliberations in the trial of Lindsay Clancy, the US mother accused of murdering her three children.

On Thursday, Clancy's defence lawyer asked the judge to dismiss a juror - a request the judge denied

Clancy, 36, is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her three children - Cora, five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan - at her Massachusetts family home on 24 January 2023

She does not deny killing them, but her lawyer argues she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time, and could not distinguish right from wrong