Day six of jury deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy trial ended much like the five before - with the jury reporting that they are unable to reach a verdict and a direction from the judge to continue trying.

However, there was one complication: a note from the jury that one of its own members was holding up proceedings.

Here's what happened on Thursday:

• Clancy's attorney Kevin Reddington called for the removal of a juror after a note to the judge said the person was not following the judges directions around reasonable doubt.
• The judge denied this request - but brought the jury back for renewed instructions on reasonable doubt.
• Clancy appeared emotional, putting her head in her lap after news came in of the jury's note.
• Conversations were tense in the courtroom, with Clancy's lawyer slamming down papers and crossing his arms in frustration during conversations with the judge.
• It's unclear if there's a split in the jury room. But Reddington told press that the singled out juror would be "identified" in an "inquiry" by the judge Friday morning.

If no unanimous verdict is reached, the judge could declare a mistrial, meaning proceedings would end without a verdict.

We're ending our live coverage shortly, but you can read more in our news story here.

Linsday Clancy's attorney Kevin Reddington today called for the removal of a juror after a note from other jurors claimed the person was not following instructions.

The judge denied that request, but Reddington says an "inquiry" into the juror is set for tomorrow morning.

So can a juror simply be replaced by an alternate?

No, says Massachusetts criminal defence attorney Joe Serpa.

"An inability to agree with the other jurors is not the same thing as an inability to serve," Serpa told the BBC.

Massachusetts law does not permit the court to remove a dissenting juror simply to break an impasse, he explained.

"The judge must first conduct a hearing and find a genuine, legally sufficient reason for discharge—such as illness, incapacity, an external conflict, or other demonstrated misconduct or inability to perform the juror’s duties," Serpa said.

If the judge does make the required finding to remove the juror, Massachusetts procedure allows another person to be selected randomly from the remaining six alternates. But the new group of 12 jurors then becomes a newly constituted jury and must disregard all previous deliberations and start from scratch.

Sakshi Venkatraman
US reporter

We're now going into the seventh day of deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy trial as the jury struggles to reach a verdict.

While long deliberations may add complications, they're not entirely unusual, former federal prosecutor Mark Chutkow tells me.

"Six days of jury deliberation after a six-week trial with complex mental health issues is not unusual," he says.

What is interesting, according to Chutkow, is the defence's adamant request to remove the juror who was seemingly holding up the proceedings.

Remember, the jury sent a note to the judge today that one of the 12 members was not properly following the judge's instructions. Clancy's lawyer asked to remove that person, which the judge denied.

It "suggests that the attorneys for both sides might think that the holdout juror is the only one favoring conviction and the rest of the jurors favor acquittal", he says.

That may or may not be the case, Chutkow adds, noting that the defence may have filed that motion looking ahead to an appeal.

Image source, Reuters

Deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial enter day seven tomorrow. After 36 hours trying to reach a verdict so far, the jury remains undecided with one member of the panel said to be holding out.

We don't know who that is, but Clancy's attorney alleges the juror is refusing to listen to the law on "reasonable doubt".

Here's a timeline of the key moments so far:

• 27 August: Attorneys for both sides make closing arguments and jury begins first day of deliberations
• 1 September: Jurors notify the judge they are unable to reach a unanimous decision - the judge instructs them to continue deliberating, but they end the day with no verdict. State police arrest a woman outside court and charge her with intimidation of a witness or jurors
• 2 September: Jurors tell the judge they still cannot reach a unanimous verdict - the atmosphere in court is incredibly tense, according to our reporter at the scene
• 3 September: On day six, Clancy's attorney asks the judge to remove one juror who he says isn't following the judge's instructions regarding "reasonable doubt". The judge rejects the request and says he does not want to interfere. Discussions between the two are animated. The judge sends the jury home and orders them to continue deliberations on Friday

Ana Faguy
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

Image source, CJ Gunther/Getty Images

There were more than 200 reporters pressed up against the glass, waiting for Clancy's lawyer Kevin Reddington to come out after court was adjourned today.

That’s the media circus that’s existed around the Massachusetts defence attorney all week.

Especially today, reporters were very eager to hear where Reddington wanted to see this all go.

Throughout the trial, Reddington has told us that he’s willing to talk to the press - and he comes out and does so frequently.

But he has refused to come to set up microphones and speak in the way lawyers often do during trials.

Instead, we see the scrum we’ve seen all week, reporters running to him and crowding around him.

Because he's soft spoken, reporters are also eager to get very close and people often fall over.

Yesterday among reporter chat, we heard that one camera person had broken their camera.

Under US law, a jury must unanimously believe "beyond a reasonable doubt" that someone is guilty in order to convict them of a crime.

The designation is the strictest standard in the US legal system. It places the burden on the government to prove that the accused is guilty, and not the accused to prove their innocence.

The definition, as the judge told the jury earlier today in court, does not require proof beyond all possible doubt. But ultimately, it's not enough for prosecutors to convince a jury that the suspect is possibly guilty.

Today, the jury wrote to Judge William Sullivan that one of the twelve of them was not following the instructions they were given regarding reasonable doubt. It's unclear what this mean about their deliberations so far, but if a jury cannot make a unanimous decision, the judge can potentially call a mistrial, which ends the trial with no verdict.

We can now bring you more from Reddington's comments to journalists outside court.

He is repeatedly asked if he knows which juror it is who is said to be holding up deliberations, to which he says "the foreperson has identified the juror and the judge will identify the juror tomorrow".

As a reminder, Reddington read out a statement a short time ago in which he said the court had received an instruction from the foreperson of the jury saying that there's one juror who refuses to listen to the law that the judge had given him or her on reasonable doubt.

Reddington is asked by reporters outside the court what the significance is of this juror not following instruction, to which he responds: "We'll see what the judge does about it tomorrow."

Reddington says he wants discussions to occur in open court tomorrow, rather than privately in a sidebar with lawyers and the judge.

"I want the public to know what's going on," he says.

Asked if he thinks a verdict can still be reached at this point, he says: "I hope so."

The judge will identify the juror tomorrow in court, he adds.

Earlier, Reddington said he has no indication of what this lone juror is thinking. He did not confirm the 11-1 split the jury foreperson reported earlier.

Speaking outside the courthouse, Lindsay Clancy's lawyer Kevin Reddington says one juror has been holding up deliberations.

That person "has doubt but will not listen to the judge's instruction", Reddington says.

There will be an inquiry by the judge at 09:00 local time (14:00 BST) that "we'll have an argument about", he says.

When asked if the remaining jurors want Clancy to be acquitted, Reddington says he doesn't know what they're thinking because he hasn't spoken to them. He says he just wanted to make sure Clancy understood what was going on.

"She has a right to know what's going on," he says, after he was asked why he brought Clancy up to the judge.

Speaking to reporters outside the court, Kevin Reddington, Lindsay Clancy's lawyer, is asked whether he wants a new juror or a mistrial.

"I don't want a mistrial. Why would I want a mistrial?" he says.

He then uses an expletive to say he believes he out-argued the prosecutors at trial.

Ana Faguy
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

Image source, Reuters

I'm sitting here now reflecting on the moment when we learned from defence lawyer Kevin Reddington that there is a single member of the jury who is holding out.

It's the first we've had a sense of the deliberations which have been going on behind closed doors since last week.

During the lawyers' private discussions with the judge, we knew something was up because Reddington became very animated, he shuffled papers around and he took his glasses off.

He went back to the table where Clancy was seated and appeared to explain the situation to her, he got very close to her face and whispered to her. It almost reminded me of a sports coach speaking to a player.

When Reddington got to the podium in the courtroom and addressed the judge - asking for that single juror to be removed - he kept his hand on the podium and used what I would describe as a commanding voice.

There were some whispers among reporters - it was a shocking moment - but otherwise it was pretty quiet in the room.

Ana Faguy
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

I'm back in the hallway again and most of the reporters walking by me are in disbelief that we're here without a verdict.

As I was walking out I caught a glimpse of Clancy's family, her parents and sister have been here all week. They looked tired, their heads were bowed.

They like many of us, will be back again tomorrow.

Ana Faguy
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

As the judge says he's sending the jury home, one older female juror closes her eyes for an extended period. A male juror appears to laugh.

They then all walk out of the room.

Ana Faguy
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

Judge William Sullivan has ended court for the day. The dismissal comes shortly after he told the jury for the third time to continue deliberations.

He says they will reconvene on Friday morning.

Sakshi Venkatraman
US reporter

It's been a very chaotic few minutes in the Lindsay Clancy courtroom.

If you're just joining us, here's what happened.

A short while ago, we got word that the jury had sent a note to the judge. That could mean anything - from a simple question to a verdict. It turned out to be neither.

One by one, the judge called each juror in and made them affirm they could still carry out their duties.

Eventually, he brought them in as a group and explained the legal rules of reasonable doubt, meaning the highest standard of proof is needed to convict someone in a criminal case. After that, the group was sent back to deliberate.

Clancy's attorney Kevin Reddington spoke in court, disclosing that the note from the jury reportedly said one juror was not following the judge's instructions regarding reasonable doubt. He called the judge's instructions "soft" and urged him to remove the juror in question. Prosecutors said they had no issue with how the judge handled the situation.

Ultimately, the judge said he did not want to interfere with the jury. So after 36 hours, deliberations continue.

Ana Faguy
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

We're lining up to go back into the courtroom, though we're not sure why.

Here's what Lindsay Clancy's defence lawyer Kevin Reddington said in court just a few minutes ago:

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.

I suggest respectfully that the soft instruction that you gave them saying, at the sidebar, 'can you listen to the law as I instruct you, does not focus on the issue' – the question is not sufficient enough, it does not allow any foundation for a motion to remove the juror who refuses to accept your instructions on the law on a reasonable doubt.

If we come back In a half an hour with a mistrial because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, that's a shame, that's a real shame.

And that’s why I object to the court's ruling, I request that we have further inquiry – my motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt.

Ana Faguy
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

We're all back in the hallway now outside the courtroom. We know a lot more than we did an hour ago. According to Reddington, Clancy's attorney, one juror is a holdout.

All the reporters are asking one another about precedent in Massachusetts and about what's going to happen next.

The truth is, we have no clue until the jury tells us.

Prosecuting attorney Jennifer Sprague says the judge's instructions to the jury were sufficient, disagreeing with Clancy's attorney, who thinks a juror should be dismissed based on a note provided by the jury's foreperson.

"There's no way to determine what the deliberations are, who's correct, who's incorrect, nor should we attempt to," she said, adding she is okay with the judge's general instructions.