The Clancy Mistrial and the Juror Questionnaire

On September 4, 2026, a Plymouth County jury could not agree in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy, and the judge declared a mistrial. In the two weeks since, reporting has turned to the lone holdout and to what he did or did not disclose before he was seated. A judge impounded the jury list on September 14 after the juror was identified online.

The reporting raises a question worth separating from the commentary. A juror who conceals something material can be grounds to undo a trial. That route runs through a motion for a new trial, and it attacks a verdict.

The Clancy trial produced no verdict. There is nothing for a nondisclosure claim to set aside, and the remedy it offers, a new trial, is what a mistrial already produces. The rules that govern a false or incomplete answer at each stage of a case are set out on this firm’s page on juror nondisclosure and misrepresentation.

Two questions are live. The first is whether District Attorney Cruz will seek a second trial. The second is the defense’s renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty, filed September 10 and set for a conference on September 29. That motion depends on the sufficiency of the Commonwealth’s evidence of criminal responsibility, not on the composition of the jury. Neither question depends on the questionnaire.

This post is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It is based solely on public court proceedings, public reporting, and published decisions and does not reflect any non-public information. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. This may constitute attorney advertising.