Randy Kessler Discusses Hung Jury Possibility in Lindsay Clancy Trial

Atlanta trial attorney and Emory Law professor Randy Kessler recently joined a live discussion about the Lindsay Clancy trial as jurors entered their fifth day of deliberations without reaching a unanimous verdict.

During the interview, Kessler explained what happens when a jury reports that it is deadlocked, the difference between a hung jury and a mistrial, and what each outcome could mean for the case moving forward.

What Happens When a Jury Cannot Reach a Verdict?

After jurors indicated that they could not reach a unanimous decision, the judge instructed them to continue deliberating. Kessler explained that a judge may ask a jury to continue working toward a verdict rather than immediately declaring the jury hung.

However, there is a balance involved. Continuing deliberations gives jurors additional time to work through disagreements, but courts must also be mindful of putting too much pressure on individual jurors to change their votes simply to reach a decision.

Kessler noted that once a verdict is returned, attorneys can ask for the jury to be polled individually to confirm that the announced verdict represents each juror’s decision.

Hung Jury vs. Mistrial

Kessler also explained an important distinction between a hung jury and a mistrial.

A hung jury occurs when jurors are unable to reach the unanimous decision required in the case. A mistrial, on the other hand, can result when a significant legal error or other problem occurs during the trial that prevents the proceeding from reaching a valid conclusion.

If the Clancy jury remains deadlocked, Kessler explained that the charges do not simply disappear. Prosecutors would then have to determine how to proceed, which could include trying the case again or potentially reaching a different resolution.

He also pointed out that a second trial presents its own challenges. Both sides have already seen the evidence, testimony, and strategies presented during the first trial, giving the defense additional insight into the prosecution’s case.

Why the Lindsay Clancy Case Is Particularly Difficult for Jurors

The discussion also turned to why deliberations may be taking so long.

Jurors heard approximately five weeks of testimony involving dozens of witnesses, hundreds of exhibits, mental health evidence, medications, expert testimony, and deeply emotional facts involving the deaths of children.

Kessler explained that jurors do not enter a courtroom without their own experiences and perspectives. Someone personally familiar with mental illness may process certain testimony differently from someone whose experiences lead them to focus primarily on the deaths of the children.

After weeks of hearing evidence through those individual perspectives, deliberations require jurors to work together, examine the evidence and determine whether the prosecution has met the legal standard required for a conviction.

As Kessler explained, longer and more complicated cases can naturally require more time for a jury to reach a decision. In his own practice, Kessler represents clients facing complex family law matters as an experienced Atlanta divorce attorney.

Watch Randy Kessler’s full discussion of the Lindsay Clancy trial and jury deliberations below.