BREAKING: One holdout juror in Clancy case refuses to follow instructions on reasonable doubt as deliberations stretch over 35 hours

It was revealed on Thursday that the jury in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial returned a note to Judge William Sullivan informing him that there was one holdout juror in deliberations who was "refusing" to follow his instructions on reasonable doubt. The note was returned as the length of deliberations stretched over 35 hours and led Clancy's defense attorney to demand that the juror be replaced. Shortly after they were sent back to their deliberations, the judge sent them home for the day.

Sullivan brought the jury back into court, questioning them each one by one, and told them to abide by his instructions, and clarifiying those on reasonable doubt. Once the jury had been cleared, prosecutors and defense were able to speak in open court. Defense Attorney Kevin Reddington said that the foreperson had returned a note saying one person wasn't abiding by the instructions.

Sullivan's instructions to the jury were: “I just wanted to go over a couple things this afternoon. First off, I want to remind you that you are required to follow my instructions on the law as I gave them to you."

“The burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges made against her," he went on. "What is proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Well, the term is often used and probably pretty well understood, though it's not easily defined. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt. For everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.”

“The charge has proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after you've compared and considered all of the evidence, you have in your minds an abiding conviction to a moral certainty that the charge is true. When we refer to moral certainty, we mean the highest degree of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs, based solely on the evidence that has been put before you in this case, I've told you that every person is presumed to be innocent until they are proved guilty, and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.”

“If you evaluate all the evidence and you still have a reasonable doubt remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be acquitted. It's not enough for the Commonwealth to establish a probability, even a strong probability, that the defendant is more likely to be guilty than not guilty.”

He ordered them to go back in and continue deliberating. Reddington said after the jury was dismissed to continue deliberating, “the court has an instruction from the foreperson of that jury that's been working for a week now, saying that there's one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you've given him or her on reasonable doubt, and I suggest respectfully that the soft instruction that you gave them … Does not focus on the issue..”

He requested that the one juror be dismissed. Sullivan denied the motion, saying “I don't feel it's appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or 11.”

This is the fourth note, two of which were regarding their inability to reach a unanimous decision. The first note, sent on Friday, requested to see a knife and empty pill bottles that were entered into evidence.

In a sidebar after returning to the courtroom, defense attorney Kevin Reddington was seen "raising his hands and is speaking emphatically" and appeared “visibly upset,” per CourtTV. He reportedly slammed down papers and “shoved back” paperwork handed to him by judge. The judge was heard raising his voice at Reddington.

The prosecution was “stone-faced.” Clancy was also wheeled over to the sidebar for the first time. Reddington's anger could indicate that he believes that were it not for this one juror, he would have won the case.