The Lindsay Clancy trial has ended in the 'disaster' of a mistrial as jurors returned to court Friday morning after more than 40 hours of deliberation and declared themselves still hopelessly deadlocked.

It was the third time they had done so. 

The chaotic end sees the high-profile trial close with a string of questions and absent the answer for which everyone hoped: innocent or guilty.

The most resounding of all: Will this prosecution be brought again? Are we now facing a retrial?

Mark Bederow, a criminal defense attorney who previously served as a prosecutor in New York, told the Daily Mail: 'The DA is in a political pickle here.

'What are they going to do? It's going to be very tough to justify a retrial if they appear to have lost.'

Because amid all the confusion into which this outcome has thrown the case one thing, Bederow said, is clear: 'The jury is utterly repudiating the prosecution's case,' he said.

'This is no surprise. Look at the quality of experts that the prosecution put on in this case. They were a joke. You had a level of expert that was nowhere near persuasive, convincing, credible or up to the task.'

Bederow suggested the prosecution 'take a deep breath, take some time, reevaluate, speak to senior lawyers in the office, analyze the evidence, pay attention to what the jury is telling you and consider that very seriously before you decide to spend millions of dollars on a retrial that, emotionally, nobody wants.'

He noted that Patrick and the Clancy family do not want to see this case on trial a second time – a prospect Patrick called 'extraordinarily painful' in a statement. Although their opinions shouldn't control what the DA's office does, the state should 'factor all these things in.'

'If a jury tells them 11-1 and the holdout is just holding out for non-legal reasons, they should strongly consider the message being sent to them and whether it's in the public interest to retry this,' Bederow said.

On Thursday, the jury foreperson sent a note to the judge informing the court that the jury was split along those lines, with one holdout juror who acknowledged doubt in the case but refused to follow the law on reasonable doubt.

According to Bederow: 'In all my years, I haven't seen a note like this sent to the court.'

Bederow, who described the outcome as ‘a disaster,’ said it is 'very uncommon' for juries to give the court a 'polling' update on where they stand, and even more unusual to see a jury 'idle on a juror.'

‘Normally, when there are disagreements about the law and what reasonable doubt means, juries will simply ask the judge to recharge them and explain the legal term - not say there's one person who refuses to consider it.

'If there is a juror who is saying, "I agree with you that there's reasonable doubt, but I don't care what the law is, I just want to find her guilty" - that's outrageous,' Bederow said. 'You can't have a juror disregard the law and make their own findings. That's un-American. It's unjust.'

On Friday morning, Reddington asked the judge to question the holdout juror, who he referred to as 'he' - but Judge William Sullivan declined to do so, sending the jury back to deliberations and delivering a 'small win' to the prosecution, whose best outcome at that point, Bederow said, was a mistrial.

Bederow said Sullivan made the right call not to get involved in deliberations, saying that a judge is not supposed to play 'father to the jury' or 'referee between warring factions.'

'The deliberative process is the sole province of the jury,' Bederow said.

That was the moment, Bederow stated, he felt certain that: 'Conviction is out the door, forget about it.'

The judge gave Clancy's defense an hour to appeal his decision a move that Bederow dismissed as 'all nothing' – 'The real question is what the DA does next.'

Shortly before 2.30pm that appeal was denied and the mistrial officially declared. 

Many had suggested that it was a mistake not to sequester the jury and that, should the case be tried again, it should be considered.

Bederow disagreed: 'I don't think depriving them of human contact with real people and just the world in general is helpful in getting them to focus on what they need to do,' he said, adding that this jury deliberated for nearly a week, demonstrating how seriously they take their civic duty.

Bederow, who hails from Massachusetts, also said there would be no reason for the case to move venues or pull from a different jury pool since the surrounding counties all read the same media coverage.

'It's pretty clear that Reddington can get a fair jury in Plymouth County, so I don't think there's any basis to move it.'

Anticipating this result on Tuesday, Bederow told the Daily Mail: 'For Clancy, Reddington, the prosecutors, the judge and anyone else who is interested in this, a hung jury is excruciating.'

A key date in determining Clancy’s retrial prospects is September 29, when Judge Sullivan is set to hold a status hearing on the next steps in the case, including whether and how a new trial could proceed. 

The unfathomable story of family, murder and alleged postpartum psychosis, played out in a Massachusetts courtroom, holding a global audience in thrall over six and a half weeks.

Dozens of witnesses testified to the horror that met Clancy's then-husband, Patrick, on January 24, 2023. Clancy had sent him out to pick up dinner and when he returned to their coastal Duxbury home, he discovered that his wife had strangled their three children with exercise resistance bands.

She then slit her wrists and neck and jumped from a window on the top floor of the house.

Now paralyzed from the waist down and wheelchair bound as a result, the 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse cast a pitiful figure at the defendant's table.

The Plymouth District Attorney's office asked the jury not to view the trial as a public debate on maternal health. But it was hard to avoid.

Witness after witness told the court that they knew Clancy had suicidal thoughts, called a crisis hotline more than once and still could not admit her for hospitalization because there was no suicide plan in place.

The fact that this is a case that came to trial at all is a source of outrage to some. But Bederow told the Daily Mail that it was one prosecutors had no choice but to bring, however difficult. Yet, while he defended the decision to prosecute, he had harsh words for the way in which the case has been argued.

'This is a very clunky, choppy, disjointed case put together by a prosecution team who just doesn't seem to appreciate the intricacies and nuances of these kinds of cases.'

Bederow, who has represented clients struggling with mental health, said it has been 'shocking' to watch prosecutors portray Clancy as a 'selfish' mother who 'calculated' the murder of her children and faked her own suicide.

He described the prosecution's approach to mental health as 'very antiquated,' expecting a defendant who is claiming an insanity defense to be 'standing in a corner, staring at the wall, rocking back and forth, talking nonsense.'

In Massachusetts, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution when a defendant makes an insanity defense, meaning they have to prove that a defendant was sane or at least capable of knowing right from wrong at the time of the crime.

Her lawyers and her ex-husband, who has now remarried and says he has forgiven her, claimed that her actions were contaminated by more than a dozen medications that she had been prescribed for her worsening psychiatric condition and suicidal thoughts. Clancy is suing her medical providers for failing to properly diagnose and treat her.

For his part, Bederow said he'll 'never understand' why prosecutors didn't try to get ahead of Clancy's mental health struggles by acknowledging them – a move that could have helped them gain credibility and trust with the jury.

That failure, he said, may well have cost them a conviction. Now, he said, this mistrial, and the knowledge that the jury was split 11-1, should have prosecutors reevaluating 'all of their decision making.'