What the ‘dynamite charge’ means for the Lindsay Clancy jury

( NewsNation ) — A Tuey-Rodriguez charge was read to jurors in the Lindsay Clancy trial Wednesday after they reported being deadlocked for a second time , giving them a stronger instruction to make another effort to reach a unanimous verdict.

The charge, also sometimes called a "dynamite charge," is used when a jury is deadlocked.

Under the Massachusetts charge , jurors are told it is their "duty to decide this case if you can do so conscientiously."

"You should consider that it is desirable that the case be decided. You should consider that you have been selected in the same manner, and from the same source, as any future jury would be," the charge instruction states.

More coverage of the Lindsay Clancy case:

How many times can the judge send the Lindsay Clancy jury back to deliberate?

Massachusetts law limits how many times a deadlocked jury can be sent back to deliberate.

After jurors have returned twice without a verdict, they cannot be sent back again without their consent unless they ask the court for further explanation of the law.

The judge could ultimately declare a mistrial on any charges on which they cannot reach a unanimous verdict.

The Tuey-Rodriguez charge reminds jurors to reconsider their positions and listen to other jurors' views, while making clear that they should not abandon sincerely held convictions to reach a verdict.

Those who are leaning toward acquittal should reconsider whether their doubts are reasonable given that other jurors disagree, and those leaning toward conviction should consider whether that disagreement raises reasonable doubt about the strength of the prosecution's case, the charge instructions state.

"The verdict to which each juror agrees must of course be his or her own verdict, the result of his or her own convictions," it states.

Jurors have spent more than 28 hours deliberating over five days whether Clancy is criminally responsible for the strangling deaths of her three young children in 2023.

Her defense contends she was in the throes of postpartum psychosis and should not be found guilty.

What might jurors be wrestling with at this point of deliberations?

Randall Kessler, an adjunct professor at Emory Law School, said jurors are not likely wrestling with the evidence at this point but rather with how their own experiences and beliefs shape their views of the case.

"I think it really comes down to what are their core beliefs, and have the lawyers been able to persuade them to give up their core beliefs? Does she go to a hospital or does she go to jail?" he said.

"The decision is clear: Do you believe that a mother who kills her children should be put in a hospital instead of jail, or do you believe that a mother that could do something like that should get help instead of going to jail?" he said.

Shira Diner, a lecturer at Boston University School of Law, said the case is incredibly complex, with extensive medical evidence and testimony that can be difficult for laypeople to parse.

"They have to take this complicated mental health information and put it into a legal category, into legal boxes, and I think that is just really difficult," she said.