Lindsay Clancy's lawyer rages in court, calls for juror's removal in tense deliberations twist

PLYMOUTH, MASSACHUSSETTS: The jury deciding Lindsay Clancy’s fate ended its sixth day of deliberations without a verdict on Thursday, September 3, after a dispute over whether one juror was following the judge’s instructions on reasonable doubt.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington sought to have the juror removed, arguing that the panelist was refusing to apply the law.

Judge William Sullivan rejected the request and instead addressed the entire 12-member panel before sending them back to deliberate Friday.

Kevin Reddington presses for juror's removal

The latest development emerged after the jury sent a note to the court indicating that a disagreement had developed within the panel.

The female foreperson’s message reportedly said one juror “refuses to listen to the law” provided by the judge concerning reasonable doubt.

The jurors were then brought into court individually and questioned at sidebar after being placed under oath, as the court attempted to determine how to respond without intruding into the substance of their deliberations.

Rather than replacing a member of the panel, Sullivan ultimately chose to reinforce the legal instructions that all 12 jurors are required to follow.

Reddington was not satisfied with the judge’s approach.

The defense attorney argued that simply repeating the legal standard did not resolve what he believed was a fundamental problem with one juror’s conduct.

He formally asked Sullivan to remove the panelist rather than allow the juror to continue participating in deliberations.

“My motion is to remove this juror who refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt,” Reddington told the judge.

Reddington appeared visibly frustrated and emotional as he argued his position, at points raising his voice and forcefully handling the papers in front of him.

The video below shows Reddington raging inside the courtroom and calling for a juror's removal.

Prosecutor warns against probing jury

Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague opposed the request, emphasizing the limits on what the court can investigate once a jury has entered deliberations.

“There is no way to determine what the deliberations are, who is correct, who is incorrect, nor should we attempt to because that is part of deliberations,” Sprague argued.

Sullivan ultimately sided with that approach.

“I don’t feel it is proper to side with one side or the other of the deliberations,” he said. “I don’t feel it’s appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or the eleven.”

The jurors were therefore left intact and instructed to continue their work. The jury is scheduled to return Friday morning for a seventh day of deliberations.