The jury breakdown that left Lindsay Clancy’s murder case deadlocked could now become her golden ticket in a separate legal battle worth millions, experts say. The Duxbury mother’s criminal trial ended Friday with no verdict — but the fight is far from over.
According to legal observers, the same panelists who couldn’t reach a unanimous decision may have just handed Clancy a powerful negotiating tool in her civil lawsuits against the medical providers she claims failed her.
Several jurors have reportedly come forward since the mistrial, revealing that 11 out of 12 were prepared to find the 36-year-old not guilty by reason of insanity. That near-unanimous sentiment could carry serious weight in settlement talks, legal experts told The Post.
“It’s like a leverage play when you’re negotiating or mediating,” said Seth Zuckerman, a New York attorney who handles both criminal and civil cases. The message to the other side, he explained, is that jurors have already heard the evidence and concluded the hospitals and doctors got it wrong.
Clancy is suing the providers who treated her in the months before she strangled her three children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months — on Jan. 24, 2023, before attempting to take her own life. Her lawsuit alleges they misdiagnosed her, shuffled her through a rotating list of powerful psychiatric medications, and failed to recognize she was spiraling.
Her then-husband, Patrick Clancy, also has a lawsuit pending against the same providers.
At trial, her defense attorney Kevin Reddington argued Clancy was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis, made worse by the medications she was prescribed. Jurors reportedly agreed with that narrative — one panelist told NBC 10 Boston the prosecution’s case felt “harsh,” while another told CBS News Boston there was no “smoking gun” and the case had “too much gray area.”
According to medical malpractice attorney Doug Burnetti, Clancy’s civil team is likely “emboldened to some extent.” He suggested a settlement could potentially reach millions of dollars.
But the path to that payout isn’t simple. Attorney John W. Day pointed out that Clancy still holds her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which could delay her deposition until her criminal case is fully resolved.
“That could be a long time,” Day said.
There’s also the matter of Dr. Jennifer Tufts, the psychiatrist who met with Clancy over a dozen times before the tragedy. Clancy’s lawsuit claims Tufts failed to diagnose her with bipolar disorder and prescribed an SSRI that can worsen symptoms of the condition.
Tufts testified for two days in the criminal trial and faced hours of intense cross-examination from Reddington. Her testimony from that trial could now be used against her in the civil case to point out inconsistencies.
Burnetti also raised concerns about finding an unbiased jury for any civil trial, given the massive media attention the case has attracted. “Everybody has their built-in biases,” he said.
Even with the momentum on her side, Clancy’s team still faces an uphill battle proving the doctors fell short of the standard of care — a legal bar that doesn’t require perfection, only competence.
If the defendants can show they met that standard despite the tragic outcome, the jury could still side with them, Burnetti noted.
But with juror sentiment this close to tipping in Clancy’s favor, the question now is whether the doctors and hospitals will decide to settle before a civil jury ever gets the chance to weigh in.
What would that settlement — and the story behind it — mean for how we talk about postpartum mental health care going forward?
