2026年9月4日 美国东部时间下午3:26 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
作者：克里·布林 新闻编辑
克里·布林是CBSNews.com的新闻编辑，毕业于纽约大学亚瑟·L·卡特新闻学院，此前曾在NBC新闻《今日数字》栏目工作，负责报道时事、突发新闻以及药物使用等相关议题。
查看完整简历
林赛·克兰西的谋杀审判于周五陷入僵局，这是陪审团审议的第七天，12人陪审团表示无法就克兰西是否在2023年1月马萨诸塞州家中杀害其三名年幼子女一事达成一致裁决，最终审判无效。
此次结果出炉前，庭审数周以来都充满情绪化的证词，陪审团闭门商议多日，期间多次报告陷入僵局，公众也经历了数日的焦急等待。陪审团团长提交的一张字条显示，仅有一名陪审员持不同意见。威廉·沙利文法官多次将陪审团送回休息室，试图让他们达成一致裁决。
直到周五，陪审团仍表示无法达成一致，沙利文法官宣布审判无效。
以下是接下来可能发生的情况。
林赛·克兰西将继续被羁押
据哥伦比亚广播公司新闻波士顿站报道，审判无效后，被告的处境将回到审前状态。这意味着克兰西将继续被羁押，并在泰克斯伯里州立医院接受精神健康治疗，她自2023年以来一直被关押在该医院。
如果克兰西因精神失常被判无罪，她将被无限期留在精神卫生机构。如果她被认定对谋杀负有刑事责任，则会被送入监狱。
地方检察官将决定是否启动重审
普利茅斯县地方检察官蒂莫西·克鲁兹将决定是否由新陪审团对克兰西就一级谋杀罪或较轻罪名进行重审，也可能考虑达成认罪协议。克鲁兹也可以决定不再重新审理此案。
在审判无效后于法庭外举行的新闻发布会上，克鲁兹表示不会立即公布相关计划。他说：“我将与团队会面，我们会在适当的时间通过正式法庭程序进一步处理此案。”
克兰西的辩护律师凯文·雷丁顿本周早些时候表示，如果有必要，他已准备好重新审理此案，但他认为克兰西在心理上还没有准备好接受第二次审判。
在周五的新闻发布会上被问及这番言论时，雷丁顿表示，如果今年秋季启动重审，“她会做好准备的”。
雷丁顿此前曾批评克鲁兹以一级谋杀罪起诉克兰西，这类罪名强制要求陪审团审判。若改为较轻罪名，则可由法官进行独任审判，或有可能达成认罪协议。
哥伦比亚广播公司新闻法律分析师卡罗琳·波利西表示，审判无效是“令人痛心的结果”。但她认为检方会考虑重审。
波利西指出，2024年凯伦·里德的首次审判因陪审团意见不一陷入僵局后，检方“立刻重启”了案件并再次进行审理，里德在重审中被判无罪。
“我认为他们很可能会再次提起诉讼，”波利西说。
洛约拉法学院教授、哥伦比亚广播公司新闻法律撰稿人杰西卡·莱文森对此表示赞同。
“我认为出于几个原因，检方完全有可能启动重审，”莱文森说。“其一，有时陪审团在不同审判中的倾向会出现巨大变化。其二，检方可以换一种截然不同的方式提起诉讼。”
她表示，与其让陪审团在一级谋杀、二级谋杀、过失杀人以及因精神疾病或缺陷无罪之间做出选择，“检方可能会提出更精简的诉讼主张。此外，也有可能达成认罪辩诉协议。”
法律专家表示，检方可在第二次审判中优化论证思路
波利西表示，如果启动第二次审判，检方将有机会重新调整或优化诉讼策略。例如，她建议检方或许可以重新考虑关于克兰西伪造自杀企图的论点。
“我认为他们应该真正聚焦于案件本身，不要淡化她的精神健康状况，而是承认她当时处于严重抑郁状态，”波利西在早前的采访中说道。她表示，检方可以将重点重新放在“她是否知晓对错之分，而不是试图声称自杀企图是伪造的”。
她说，检方和辩方都希望对陷入僵局的陪审员进行问卷调查，“因为这将影响未来的决策和论证思路”。
“如果案件再次进入审判，我们可能会看到一个完全不同的案件理论，”波利西说。
哥伦比亚广播公司波士顿站WBZ-TV的法律分析师詹妮弗·罗曼表示，本案双方可能都在思考哪些地方可以做出调整。
“人们很难在审判结束后，甚至就在当天不去回想，‘那次交叉询问进展顺利’或者‘我真希望今天能换一种方式处理那件事’，这是人之常情，”罗曼说。“当然，双方都从本次审判中吸取了经验，如果确实进行第二次审判，他们会做出一些调整。”
波利西表示，第二次审判在多个方面可能对检方更为有利。
“他们可以简化诉讼流程——了解首次审判中哪些环节做得好、哪些做得不好，并加以优化。辩方也不会再有意外之举，”她说。
“我认为本案的情况确实如此，因为检方在本次审判中犯了一些相当严重的错误。他们有第二次机会来弥补其中一些失误。我认为重审时的案件会有力得多。”
陪审团审议为何如此艰难？
由于审议过程保密，目前尚不清楚具体是什么原因导致陪审团陷入僵局。陪审员有五种裁决选项可供选择——因精神失常无罪、无罪、一级谋杀、二级谋杀或过失杀人——任何裁决都必须是一致通过的。
本案的关键争议点在于，克兰西是否对杀害子女负有刑事责任，还是因精神疾病严重到无法理解自己的行为。
检方和雷丁顿都认可克兰西当时患有精神疾病，但在她对自己的行为应承担多大责任的问题上存在分歧。检方称克兰西策划了谋杀，能够明辨是非，而辩方则辩称她服用药物过量，且正遭受产后精神病的折磨。
庭审期间，陪审员听取了85名证人的证词，并审查了200多件证据。
这起案件引发了广泛关注，支持者、抗议者和反抗议者齐聚法院，网络上也掀起了关于本案的公开辩论。波利西表示，陪审团难以做出裁决并不令人意外。
“这是一个缩影，对吧？我们陷入全面僵局并不令人震惊，看看外面的所有人就知道了，”波利西说。“这里的所有人都无法达成一致，那陪审团又为何能达成一致呢？”
心理学家、陪审团顾问劳拉·涅米周一告诉哥伦比亚广播公司新闻波士顿站，陪审员们“面临着极其艰巨的任务”。
“这不仅仅是理解医学证据，也不仅仅是理清相互矛盾的诊断结论。陪审员必须从所有信息中梳理出一个连贯的故事，”涅米说。
After Lindsay Clancy mistrial, what happens next?
2026-09-04 3:26 PM EDT / CBS News
By Kerry Breen News Editor
Kerry Breen is a news editor at CBSNews.com. A graduate of New York University’s Arthur L. Carter School of Journalism, she previously worked at NBC News’ TODAY Digital. She covers current events, breaking news and issues including substance use.
Read Full Bio
The murder trial of Lindsay Clancy ended in a mistrial on Friday, the seventh day of deliberations, after the 12-person jury said it could not come to a unanimous decision about whether Clancy was criminally responsible for killing her three young children at her Massachusetts home in January 2023.
The outcome came after weeks of emotional testimony and days of anxious waiting as the jury argued behind closed doors and repeatedly reported being deadlocked. A note from the foreperson indicated there was a single holdout. Judge William Sullivan sent them back multiple times to keep trying to reach a verdict.
Finally on Friday, when the jury said it was still deadlocked, Sullivan declared a mistrial.
Here’s what could be next.
Lindsay Clancy will remain in custody
With a mistrial, the conditions for the defendant go back to what they were pretrial, CBS News Boston reported. That means Clancy will remain in custody and under psychiatric care at Tewksbury State Hospital, where she has been held since 2023.
If Clancy had been found not guilty by reason of insanity, she would have remained at a mental health facility indefinitely. If she had been found criminally responsible for the murders, she would have gone to prison.
DA will decide about new trial
Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz will decide if Clancy will be retried for first-degree murder or a lesser charge with a new jury, or possibly consider a plea deal. Cruz could also decide not to retry the case.
In a news conference outside court following the mistrial, Cruz said he would not be announcing those plans immediately. “I’m going to be meeting with our team, and we will address this case further at the appropriate time in the context of an official court proceeding,” he said.
Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, said earlier in the week that he’d be ready to retry the case if needed but believes she is not emotionally prepared to undergo a second trial.
Asked about that comment at a news conference Friday, Reddington said that if a retrial goes forward this fall, “She’ll be ready.”
Reddington has previously criticized Cruz for charging Clancy with first-degree murder, which mandates a jury trial. A lesser charge would have made a bench trial before a judge, or a potential plea deal, possible.
A mistrial is “a gut-wrenching outcome,” said CBS News legal analyst Caroline Polisi. But she believes the prosecution will consider a retrial.
Polisi noted that after Karen Read’s first trial ended in a hung jury in 2024, prosecutors “came right back” and tried it again; Read was acquitted in the retrial.
“I think they’ll likely come back a second time,” Polisi said.
Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School and CBS News legal contributor, agreed.
“I think it’s entirely possible that they would move forward with a retrial for a couple of reasons,” Levinson said. “One, sometimes you see a really big swing in juries from one trial to another. Two, you could charge this in a very different way.”
Instead of asking the jury to decide between first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, or not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, she said, “You could see the prosecution bring a much more slimmed-down case. In addition, you could potentially see a plea bargain.”
Prosecution can refine its argument in second trial, legal experts say
Polisi said prosecutors would have the opportunity to rework or refine their strategy if a second trial is held. For example, she suggested, the prosecution might want to rethink its argument that Clancy faked her suicide attempt.
“I would think they would really hone down their case to present it not as, you know, diminishing her mental health state, but acknowledging that she was severely depressed,” Polisi said in an earlier interview. She said the prosecution could refocus on “whether or not she knew the difference between right and wrong, not trying to say it was a fake suicide attempt.”
Both the prosecution and defense will want to poll the jurors who deadlocked, she said, “because that will shape” future decisions and arguments.
“We might see a completely different theory of this case if it gets tried a second time,” Polisi said.
Jennifer Roman, a legal analyst for CBS Boston station WBZ-TV, said both sides in the case will likely be thinking about what they would do differently.
“It’s hard not to look back at a trial and, even on the day of, think, ‘That cross-examination went well’ or ‘I wish I had done that a little bit differently today.’ It’s human nature,” Roman said. “Certainly, both sides have learned from this trial and will do things a little bit differently if there is in fact a second trial.”
Polisi said there are a number of ways in which a second trial could favor the prosecution.
“They get to streamline it — they get to see what they did right and incorrectly in the first trial and sort of refine it. There’s no surprises from the defense,” she said.
“I think that really would be the case here, because the prosecution made some pretty big missteps, I’d say, in this trial. They would have a second chance to sort of alleviate some of those missteps. And I think it would be a much stronger case on a retrial.”
What made jury deliberations so difficult?
It’s not clear what specifically caused the jurors to deadlock because deliberations are secret. Jurors had five options to choose from — not guilty by reason of insanity, not guilty, first-degree murder, second-degree murder or manslaughter — and any verdict would have had to be unanimous.
A key issue in the case was whether Clancy was criminally responsible for the murders of her children or if she was too mentally ill to understand her actions.
Both the prosecution and Reddington agreed that Clancy was mentally ill, but they disagreed about how culpable she was for her actions. The prosecution said Clancy planned the killings and was able to distinguish right from wrong, while the defense argued that she was overmedicated and suffering from postpartum psychosis.
Jurors heard testimony from 85 witnesses during the trial and considered more than 200 pieces of evidence.
The case has drawn widespread attention, with supporters, protesters and counterprotesters showing up at the courthouse, and public debate about the case raging online. Polisi said it’s not surprising to see the jury struggle to come to a decision.
“It’s a microcosm, right? It’s not shocking that we’re at a complete deadlock, because look at everybody else out here,” Polisi said. “Nobody can agree out here, so why would the jury agree?”
Laura Niemi, a psychologist and jury consultant, told CBS News Boston on Monday that the jurors had “a really difficult task.”
“It’s more than understanding like the medical evidence. It’s more than kind of making sense of the conflicting diagnoses. Jurors have to make a coherent story out of all of this,” Niemi said.