Many Americans’ favorite television judge, Judy Sheindlin, has weighed in on the outcome of the Lindsay Clancy murder trial.
Sheindlin is warning that prosecutors could face serious consequences if they allow the case to end in a mistrial.
The longtime television jurist best known as “Judge Judy” was approached by TMZ in New York on Thursday and asked about the closely watched Massachusetts case.
Clancy’s trial ended in a mistrial earlier this month after jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict on whether she should be held criminally responsible for killing her three children.
Eleven jurors reportedly favored finding her not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, while one juror held out for conviction.
Asked whether Clancy should face another trial, Sheindlin said she believed there was a risk in simply allowing the prosecution to end.
Asked whether Clancy was guilty of murder, Sheindlin responded, “There’s no question that she killed her children, the only question is—is there an excuse for it? Make up your own mind on that one.”
When asked whether prosecutors should pursue a retrial, Judge Judy answered in the affirmative. “I think there’s a danger in not retrying,” she said.
Sheindlin stopped short of offering a definitive legal judgment on whether Clancy should have been convicted.
She said the central issue was not whether Clancy killed her children — a fact Clancy’s defense has acknowledged — but whether her mental state legally excused her from criminal responsibility at the time of the killings.
Sheindlin also cautioned that the case was too complicated to reduce to a quick soundbite, telling TMZ she could not give a considered answer to the broader legal questions surrounding the trial in just a few minutes.
Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse, was charged with killing her children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months — inside the family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in January 2023.
Her attorneys argued throughout the trial that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and lacked criminal responsibility when the killings occurred. Prosecutors maintained that Clancy understood what she was doing and should be held criminally accountable.
👀 Judge Judy thinks there could be real danger in letting Lindsay Clancy’s case end with a mistrial. pic.twitter.com/iYjMN25OVk
— TMZ (@TMZ) September 17, 2026
The jury deliberated for roughly 38 hours over seven days before Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on Sept. 4 after the panel reported it could not reach a unanimous verdict.
Several jurors have since spoken publicly about the deliberations, saying the panel was ultimately divided 11-1, with the lone holdout declining to support an insanity acquittal.
The holdout juror has faced intense public scrutiny since the mistrial, prompting Sullivan to order the identities of the jurors sealed indefinitely over concerns about privacy and safety.
Sheindlin was also asked about remarks from Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., who recently said Clancy should face public execution.
Sheindlin rejected that suggestion, calling the idea “ridiculous.”
Massachusetts does not have the death penalty, and Clancy has not been convicted.
Prosecutors have not yet publicly announced whether they intend to retry the case.
Clancy’s next court hearing is scheduled for Sept. 29, when her defense is expected to continue pressing efforts to prevent another trial.
Judge William Sullivan, who presided over the case, has ordered the identities of all jurors to remain sealed indefinitely as scrutiny surrounding the lone holdout continues to intensify.
Sullivan issued the order late last week, citing concerns about juror safety and privacy following the highly publicized mistrial.
Sullivan had initially sealed the names of the 12 deliberating jurors and six alternates for 14 days after declaring a mistrial on Sept. 4. Under the new order, they will remain confidential unless the court decides otherwise.
Sullivan pointed to the enormous amount of attention surrounding the case, including heated reaction on social media and efforts to identify individual jurors.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
