Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.

The case of Lindsay Clancy has officially ended in a mistrial. The high-profile murder case has consumed national media—for better and for worse— for weeks now, as a jury considered whether the Massachusetts mother intentionally took the lives of her three children or if her crime (and punishment) could be mitigated by reason of insanity. After the jury spent nearly 40 hours deliberating, the judge declared a mistrial on Friday afternoon. That means this case is far from over, with plenty of options—and questions— remaining about Clancy’s fate—and if and how the commonwealth of Massachusetts will try her again.

For some broader context: Clancy’s case was exceptionally rare, as she pleaded guilty to strangling her three children back in 2023, but argued that she should not be held criminally liable because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time. The prosecution argued she was able to parse right from wrong and preplanned to commit the atrocities at the Clancy family home. The jury, made up of nine women and three men, spent six days deliberating the case and twice sent notes to the judge indicating they could not reach a unanimous verdict. Clancy’s defense attorney suggested one sole juror admitted they felt there was reasonable doubt concerning her guilt, but refused to join the 11 jurors who were ready to find Clancy not guilty, per her insanity defense.

On Friday, as Judge William Sullivan was announcing a mistrial, Kevin Reddington, Clancy’s defense attorney, asked to appeal his decision with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Sullivan obliged, allowing Reddington one hour to file his appeal, but it ultimately failed, with the state Supreme Court quickly holding a hearing and denying the application for an emergency stay. To unpack the other complicated details of this case’s non-ending, I spoke with Effie Blassberger, a trial attorney at Clayman Rosenberg Kirshner & Linder who focuses on Me Too–related litigation alongside white-collar criminal defense.

Here’s our conversation, lightly edited and condensed for clarity:

Shirin Ali: The jury’s landing point in this case was described by Clancy’s attorney as an “intractable position.” What does that mean, specifically within the context of reasonable doubt?

Effie Blassberger: It’s basically........

© Slate