Alan Jackson — the defense attorney who represented Karen Read in Massachusetts during both her criminal trials — says he sees similarities between her case and Lindsay Clancy’s, especially in the controversial way both were handed a mistrial. The comparison drops just hours after a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court justice upheld the mistrial ruling in Clancy’s case, raising serious questions about whether Massachusetts courts are repeating the same procedural mistakes that nearly cost Read everything.
Jackson didn’t mince words on TMZ Live Friday. He called Karen’s case a “travesty” when it ended in a mistrial the first time, adding he didn’t understand when the judge didn’t poll individual jurors to see if they’d come to some type of verdict. But here’s where it gets sharp: Jackson says he also doesn’t understand why it didn’t happen here, because the precedent of the Read case was sitting right there. Translation — the Massachusetts justice system just ignored its own playbook.
The stakes couldn’t be more different, though the legal framework is eerily similar. Karen Read was found not guilty of murdering her Boston police officer boyfriend in June 2025, nearly a year after her first prosecution ended in a mistrial. She walked free. But Lindsay Clancy admitted killing her three children before trying to end her own life in 2023, and remains in hospital until a decision is made on whether there will be a retrial. The Clancy case involves an insanity defense and claims of postpartum psychosis — radically different from Read’s theory that she was framed by law enforcement.
What Jackson’s highlighting isn’t that the cases are identical. It’s that the procedural failures that plagued Read’s first trial — hung juries, no individual juror polling, unclear jury deadlock status — are now potentially happening again. Jackson has tried more than 85 cases to a jury verdict with a 96% success rate, so when he’s sounding the alarm about trial mechanics, people with courtroom experience listen. The concern is real: if prosecutors push for a second Clancy trial and that trial also ends badly, Massachusetts will have a legitimacy crisis on its hands.
This matters beyond Boston’s courthouse. When high-profile trials pivot on procedural fouls — and when defense attorneys see the same mistakes being repeated — it erodes public confidence in the entire system. Read’s case became a cultural moment partly because her supporters believed the cards were stacked. Clancy’s situation is more complex (and more tragic), but if the justice system compounds one mistrial with another, it’s a black eye for Massachusetts justice.
The 16BARS take: Jackson’s warning is less about defending clients and more about exposing that Massachusetts courts might be institutionally broken. When the same procedural failures happen twice and the second defendant doesn’t have a celebrity lawyer to fight back, the system’s real problems come into focus.
