{"id":8103,"date":"2026-09-04T20:39:01","date_gmt":"2026-09-04T20:39:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/metrotransitreview.com\/?p=8103"},"modified":"2026-09-04T20:39:01","modified_gmt":"2026-09-04T20:39:01","slug":"why-lindsay-clancys-lawyer-name-dropped-karen-read-as-he-fought-against-mistrial","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/metrotransitreview.com\/?p=8103","title":{"rendered":"Why Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer name-dropped Karen Read as he fought against mistrial"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Accused killer mom Lindsay Clancy\u2019s lawyer referenced the bombshell Karen Read murder case Friday in his failed bid to avoid a mistrial \u2014 by arguing that the jurors may have been confused during deliberations.<\/p>\n

Read more What Lindsay Clancy\u2019s lawyer argued in his last-ditch appeal to get mistrial tossed<\/a><\/p>\n

Attorney Kevin Reddington cited the high-profile case \u2014 in which Read was charged with killing her Massachusetts police officer boyfriend in January 2022\u2014 while demanding that jurors be \u201cpolled\u201d and asked to return for more deliberations.<\/p>\n

\u201cUnder Karen Read versus the Commonwealth \u2026 Massachusetts rules of criminal procedure give a trial judge discretion to require a jury to return a verdict for charges on which they have agreed before declaring a mistrial,\u201d Reddington told Judge William Sullivan.<\/p>\n

A similar rule \u201calso permits the judge to poll the jury when a verdict is returned and before the verdict is recorded, however, a judge is not required to accept a partial verdict before declaring a mistrial,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Follow The Post\u2019s live updates on the Lindsay Clancy trial<\/strong><\/p>\n

A lawyer for the prosecution then fired back, \u201cI would object to that \u2026 I think we\u2019re in a different scenario here than in the Read case.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIn that case, they did reach a verdict on certain charges but not others,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

Before making the argument, Reddington had just asked the judge to consider that the jury note was highly unusual.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat jury foreperson wrote, very unusually, that it was \u2018with a heavy heart\u2019\u201d that they couldn\u2019t agree on a verdict, Reddington said.<\/p>\n

In Karen Read\u2019s first murder trial in 2024, jurors were confused by whether they had to agree on a verdict for all charges \u2014 including second-degree murder, manslaughter while under the influence, and leaving the scene of a crash, Read\u2019s lawyer, Peter Elikann, told The Post Friday.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s the latest on Lindsay Clancy\u2019s murder trial:<\/strong><\/h2>\n