Under US law, a jury must unanimously believe "beyond a reasonable doubt" that someone is guilty in order to convict them of a crime.

The designation is the strictest standard in the US legal system. It places the burden on the government to prove that the accused is guilty, and not the accused to prove their innocence.

The definition, as the judge told the jury earlier today in court, does not require proof beyond all possible doubt. But ultimately, it's not enough for prosecutors to convince a jury that the suspect is possibly guilty.

Today, the jury wrote to Judge William Sullivan that one of the twelve of them was not following the instructions they were given regarding reasonable doubt. It's unclear what this mean about their deliberations so far, but if a jury cannot make a unanimous decision, the judge can potentially call a mistrial, which ends the trial with no verdict.

We can now bring you more from Reddington's comments to journalists outside court.

He is repeatedly asked if he knows which juror it is who is said to be holding up deliberations, to which he says "the foreperson has identified the juror and the judge will identify the juror tomorrow".

As a reminder, Reddington read out a statement a short time ago in which he said the court had received an instruction from the foreperson of the jury saying that there's one juror who refuses to listen to the law that the judge had given him or her on reasonable doubt.

Reddington is asked by reporters outside the court what the significance is of this juror not following instruction, to which he responds: "We'll see what the judge does about it tomorrow."

Reddington says he wants discussions to occur in open court tomorrow, rather than privately in a sidebar with lawyers and the judge.

"I want the public to know what's going on," he says.

Asked if he thinks a verdict can still be reached at this point, he says: "I hope so."

The judge will identify the juror tomorrow in court, he adds.

Earlier, Reddington said he has no indication of what this lone juror is thinking. He did not confirm the 11-1 split the jury foreperson reported earlier.

Speaking outside the courthouse, Lindsay Clancy's lawyer Kevin Reddington says one juror has been holding up deliberations.

That person "has doubt but will not listen to the judge's instruction", Reddington says.

There will be an inquiry by the judge at 09:00 local time (14:00 BST) that "we'll have an argument about", he says.

When asked if the remaining jurors want Clancy to be acquitted, Reddington says he doesn't know what they're thinking because he hasn't spoken to them. He says he just wanted to make sure Clancy understood what was going on.

"She has a right to know what's going on," he says, after he was asked why he brought Clancy up to the judge.

Speaking to reporters outside the court, Kevin Reddington, Lindsay Clancy's lawyer, is asked whether he wants a new juror or a mistrial.

"I don't want a mistrial. Why would I want a mistrial?" he says.

He then uses an expletive to say he believes he out-argued the prosecutors at trial.

Ana Faguy
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

Image source, Reuters

I'm sitting here now reflecting on the moment when we learned from defence lawyer Kevin Reddington that there is a single member of the jury who is holding out.

It's the first we've had a sense of the deliberations which have been going on behind closed doors since last week.

During the lawyers' private discussions with the judge, we knew something was up because Reddington became very animated, he shuffled papers around and he took his glasses off.

He went back to the table where Clancy was seated and appeared to explain the situation to her, he got very close to her face and whispered to her. It almost reminded me of a sports coach speaking to a player.

When Reddington got to the podium in the courtroom and addressed the judge - asking for that single juror to be removed - he kept his hand on the podium and used what I would describe as a commanding voice.

There were some whispers among reporters - it was a shocking moment - but otherwise it was pretty quiet in the room.

Ana Faguy
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

I'm back in the hallway again and most of the reporters walking by me are in disbelief that we're here without a verdict.

As I was walking out I caught a glimpse of Clancy's family, her parents and sister have been here all week. They looked tired, their heads were bowed.

They like many of us, will be back again tomorrow.

Ana Faguy
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

As the judge says he's sending the jury home, one older female juror closes her eyes for an extended period. A male juror appears to laugh.

They then all walk out of the room.

Ana Faguy
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

Judge William Sullivan has ended court for the day. The dismissal comes shortly after he told the jury for the third time to continue deliberations.

He says they will reconvene on Friday morning.

Sakshi Venkatraman
US reporter

It's been a very chaotic few minutes in the Lindsay Clancy courtroom.

If you're just joining us, here's what happened.

A short while ago, we got word that the jury had sent a note to the judge. That could mean anything - from a simple question to a verdict. It turned out to be neither.

One by one, the judge called each juror in and made them affirm they could still carry out their duties.

Eventually, he brought them in as a group and explained the legal rules of reasonable doubt, meaning the highest standard of proof is needed to convict someone in a criminal case. After that, the group was sent back to deliberate.

Clancy's attorney Kevin Reddington spoke in court, disclosing that the note from the jury reportedly said one juror was not following the judge's instructions regarding reasonable doubt. He called the judge's instructions "soft" and urged him to remove the juror in question. Prosecutors said they had no issue with how the judge handled the situation.

Ultimately, the judge said he did not want to interfere with the jury. So after 36 hours, deliberations continue.

Ana Faguy
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

We're lining up to go back into the courtroom, though we're not sure why.

Here's what Lindsay Clancy's defence lawyer Kevin Reddington said in court just a few minutes ago:

The court has an instruction from the foreperson of that jury, - that's been working for a week now - saying that there's one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you’ve given him or her on reasonable doubt.

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 question is not sufficient enough, it does not allow any foundation for a motion to remove the juror who refuses to accept your instructions on the law on a reasonable doubt.

If we come back In a half an hour with a mistrial because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, that's a shame, that's a real shame.

And that’s why I object to the court's ruling, I request that we have further inquiry – my motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt.

Ana Faguy
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

We're all back in the hallway now outside the courtroom. We know a lot more than we did an hour ago. According to Reddington, Clancy's attorney, one juror is a holdout.

All the reporters are asking one another about precedent in Massachusetts and about what's going to happen next.

The truth is, we have no clue until the jury tells us.

Prosecuting attorney Jennifer Sprague says the judge's instructions to the jury were sufficient, disagreeing with Clancy's attorney, who thinks a juror should be dismissed based on a note provided by the jury's foreperson.

"There's no way to determine what the deliberations are, who's correct, who's incorrect, nor should we attempt to," she said, adding she is okay with the judge's general instructions.

"I appreciate that you're allowing us to be heard in public," says Reddington, Clancy's lawyer, telling the judge that he would prefer to speak publicly rather than privately during a sidebar with the judge.

One juror, he says, "is refusing" to listen to the judge's instructions about "reasonable doubt", and that they have "spurned the instructions of this court".

He calls it a "shame" that the jury has been instructed to continue deliberating.

The judge says it would not be "proper... to side with one side or the other on deliberations", and that he has no choice but to ask them to keep trying to reach a verdict.

Clancy's defence lawyer Kevin Reddington is asking the judge to remove one juror.

He says, citing the jury foreperson, that one person isn't listening to the judge's instructions about what constitutes reasonable doubt in a criminal case.

He argues there is no choice but to expel this juror.

Ana Faguy
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

Clancy bows her head into her lap as the assembled media begin to exit the courtroom. Her lawyer is seen holding her in a side hug and rubbing her back.

Ana Faguy
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

Kevin Reddington, Clancy's defence lawyer, is not looking at the judge in apparent frustration. The prosecutors stare on silently. The judge does appear to hear Reddington.

We hear Reddington say, "Let's do it."

Ana Faguy
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

This was not what we expected at all. We thought we'd be coming in here to hear there was a mistrial or that there was a question or a verdict in the case.

Instead they are continuing their deliberations.

The jury has been sent back to continue deliberations after receiving further instructions on the law from the judge.