What's next in polarizing triple murder trial of Lindsay Clancy?

A mistrial was declared in the triple murder trial of Lindsay Clancy on Friday after a Massachusetts jury could not reach a unanimous verdict in the high-profile case. Clancy, a 36-year-old nurse, is accused of strangling her three young children to death with exercise cords in 2023. She faced murder and manslaughter charges in the killings of her daughter Cora, 5, and sons Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months. Clancy admits to the killings. Her defense attorney Kevin Reddington argued Clancy should not be convicted of murder or manslaughter charges, contending she was in the throes of a postpartum psychosis driven by prescription mental health drugs. The Massachusetts jury could not reach a verdict that included the option of finding Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity. 'I'm not surprised we ended up with a hung jury. This was a battle of the experts, and with five weeks of testimony, 80 witnesses and 300 exhibits,' said Mark G. Astor, an attorney who specializes in mental and behavioral health cases and a founding partner of Florida-based Astor Simovitch Law. 'It was always going to be a struggle for the jury to be unanimous. The real question was why she did it and, more importantly, whether she was criminally responsible at the time.' The polarizing case has drawn significant attention, including on social media. It also drew comments Friday from President Donald Trump. 'Look, she did a horrible, horrible thing. Can't be worse. But you'll find out what the price to pay is. There'll be a price,' Trump said Friday. 'It's going to be a mental institution or jail or something.' Nana Knight, CEO and co-founder of California-based Knight Law, said the Clancy case was a 'horrible tragedy, with not one, not two but three little kids killed by their own mother.' But the jury struggled with the New England mom's motive and mental state. 'This case is emotionally disturbing and gets attention because it is one of the hardest moral and legal questions imaginable. What do we do when what appears to be a loving mother kills her own children because she has a serious mental illness?' Knight said. 'She does not fit the public's mental picture of a child murderer. Is this person a monster or a seriously sick mother?' Clancy reportedly tried to kill herself after the suburban killings and is paralyzed from the waist down from that attempt. She has been held at a Massachusetts psychiatric facility and returned there after the mistrial. The first trial saw supporters of Clancy and her mental health defense gather outside the Plymouth, Mass., courthouse. There also have been aggressive advocates on social media. So what's next? Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said Friday his office is still deciding his next steps in the high-profile cause, stressing his desire for justice for the slain children. 'I'd expect the prosecution to retry this,' said Colin Ram, managing partner of South Carolina-based Colin Ram Law LLC. But, like the first trial, it's complicated. Reddington claims the first jury was split 11-1 against a murder or manslaughter conviction. Ram said that changes the prosecution's leverage. 'They just put on their best case and apparently only convinced one juror. That kind of result tends to push a prosecutor to consider plea negotiations on a lesser charge,' he said. 'But if the defense feels emboldened to try this case again, all bets are off.' Lauren Tully, a Colorado-based defense attorney, said Cruz did not seem 'inclined to dismiss it or offer a deal' in his comments Friday after the trial. But she noted the high costs of a new trial and the specter of round two for Clancy and her veteran defense attorney. 'A mistrial is always a really difficult thing to go through,' Tully said. 'On one hand, as a defense attorney, you avoid a guilty verdict for your client. On the other hand, it is extremely hard when you are so close to an acquittal to have to start all over again.' Reddington voiced frustration with the hung jury, arguing that one man on the jury blocked an acquittal, most likely by reason of insanity. He sought to have the purported holdout juror tossed from the trial, voicing frustrations that Clancy 'was robbed by this man.' But his comments about the juror and criticisms of Massachusetts Superior Court Judge William Sullivan in Plymouth County ruling not to boot the juror, as well as Cruz, have also sparked some criticism. 'I have been practicing for 32 years. I would never conduct myself in court that way. It was unprofessional, but it was calculated to ensure that a future jury was poisoned to the point that we may not be able to seat a fair and impartial jury in that county,' Astor said. 'You cannot remove a juror just because that juror is the lone holdout.' The jury was composed of nine women and three men. Franz Borghardt, a Louisiana-based criminal defense and personal injury attorney, said jury selection presents a challenge in the murder case. 'National attention on the issues of the case showed the polarizing nature of women's health issues and a failure to adequately address those issues. There were nine women on the jury,' he said. 'This was a miscalculation of the real issues of the case and a failure to try the case based on those issues.' Borghardt pointed to the prosecution's early efforts in the trial to demonize Clancy. 'The Commonwealth believed that the killing of three children would distract from the unaddressed mental health epidemic facing women across the country,' he said. 'That was a mistake.' Knight said there could eventually be a plea deal involving an insanity plea and commitment to a mental health facility. 'I see no world in which the prosecution will agree to Clancy walking away free with all the evidence that the prosecution was able to produce and argue,' she said.