VIENNA (AP) — The United States, Britain, France and Germany have drafted a resolution for possible consideration by the Board of Governors of the U.N. nuclear watchdog that seeks to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for failure to comply with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations, diplomats say.
Under those obligations, which are part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is legally bound to declare all nuclear material and activities and allow inspectors of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency to verify that none of it is being diverted from peaceful uses.
The diplomatic move has been under consideration since June 2025 when the IAEA board found Iran officially in noncompliance with its nonproliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years — one day before the U.S. and Israel launched attacks against Iran’s nuclear sites.
The possible referral of Iran to the U.N. Security Council shifts the responsibility to a higher authority that is able to enact further legally binding measures, including sanctions or asset freezes.
But specific punitive measures by the U.N. are unlikely in this case since Iran’s allies Russia and China hold a veto power on the U.N. Security Council.
The draft resolution, which was seen by The Associated Press and reported earlier by Reuters, requests the IAEA director general Rafael Grossi “to transmit this resolution and the previously adopted resolutions … to all Members of the Agency and to the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the IAEA Statute.”
The resolution also “stresses its support for a diplomatic solution to the challenges posed by the Iranian nuclear programme and its implications for regional peace and stability leading to an agreement that addresses all international concerns related to Iran’s nuclear activities, and encourages all parties to constructively engage in diplomacy.”
Diplomats say that the resolution is still under negotiation and has not yet been formally submitted to the board. The text of the draft resolution may therefore still change, as board members still have the opportunity to suggest amendments.
Once formally submitted, it will be put to a vote during next week’s IAEA Board of Governors meeting in Vienna.
Referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council had been stalled to allow a final push for diplomacy, according to a senior Western diplomat, who wasn’t authorized to comment about the sensitive matter and spoke on condition of anonymity. The IAEA board now has to follow its mandate and act because not only has Iran not cooperated, but even communication is no longer happening, the official said.
Since Israel and the U.S. struck Iran’s nuclear sites during the 12-day war in June 2025, Iran hasn’t given IAEA inspectors access to nuclear sites that were affected by the strikes — even though Tehran is legally obliged to cooperate with the watchdog under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
The agency also has been unable to verify the status of the stockpile of near weapons-grade uranium since the June bombing. Of course, that has been made much more difficult by more than six months of war that the U.S. and Israel launched against Iran on Feb. 28, including strikes that have been carried out by both Washington and Tehran this week.
The IAEA warned in Tuesday’s confidential report, seen by the AP, that continued denial by Iran to allow IAEA inspectors access to its nuclear sites and to verify the nuclear material constitutes a “proliferation risk” that needed to be “addressed with the utmost urgency.”
According to the IAEA, Iran maintains a stockpile of 440.9 kilograms (972 pounds) of uranium enriched up to 60% purity — a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%.
That stockpile could allow Iran to build as many as 10 nuclear bombs, should it decide to weaponize its program, IAEA chief Grossi warned in an interview last year with the AP. He said that it doesn’t mean that Iran has such a weapon.
The IAEA also reported in its confidential report on Tuesday that there has been no progress in its long-running investigation into uranium traces detected by inspectors at various undeclared sites in Iran.
Western officials suspect that the uranium traces could provide further evidence that Iran had a secret nuclear weapons program until 2003.
Iran says that it’s not pursuing nuclear weapons, and its program is entirely peaceful.
—- The Associated Press receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
FILE - Rafael Grossi, one of the four candidates for the next UN Secretary-General, attends an event, "The Leader the UN Needs: Choosing the Next Secretary-General," in London on May 28, 2026. (AP Photo/Kin Cheung, File)
PLYMOUTH, Mass. (AP) — Lindsay Clancy's trial judge declared a mistrial Friday after an emergency defense appeal was denied. Judge William Sullivan ended the trial after jurors on Friday sent a note for a third time saying they couldn't unanimously decide whether to hold her criminally responsible for killing her three young children in 2023.
Deliberations took a dramatic turn Thursday when the foreperson told the judge that a lone holdout was refusing to follow the court’s instructions about reasonable doubt. Clancy’s defense has argued that the judge’s refusal to remove the juror undermines the trial.
Clancy, a 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse, doesn’t deny strangling her children in the basement of their home. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington blamed postpartum psychosis. Jennifer Sprague said Clancy knew what she was doing.
Postpartum psychosis is estimated to afflict 1 to 2 per 1,000 women after delivery. Experts at the Cleveland Clinic describe it as a mental health emergency affecting someone’s sense of reality. Though most people with postpartum psychosis don’t harm their children, mothers with severe cases may try to do so.
Here’s the latest:
Rhonda Gonsalves, who has come to court three times but not Friday and dressed in white for the Clancy children, said it wasn’t the verdict she was hoping for.
“I don’t think today was justice for the children at all because we are going to have to do this all over again,” she said by phone. “At the end of the day, I do think she deserves to be behind bars or a mental institution for the rest of her life for what she did to her children.”
Jessie Colbert is the coordinator of the Massachusetts Mind the Gap Coalition, an advocacy group working on state legislation that would reform how maternal mental health conditions are treated in the criminal justice system.
“The shame, stigma, confusion, and lack of any real system of care around Perinatal Mood and Anxiety Disorders (PMADs) is an ongoing crisis much wider than this trial,” Colbert said. “Better solutions are needed in both the healthcare and criminal legal systems, and even more so for vulnerable communities.”
Sullivan said the case has garnered significant and divisive attention in Massachusetts and beyond.
The order expires in 14 days unless otherwise directed by the court, and it does not preclude jurors from coming forward and identifying themselves.
David Meier, who is representing Clancy’s former husband Patrick Clancy in his civil lawsuit over her mental health treatment, released this statement:
“Patrick Clancy is grateful to the Court and to the jurors for their hard work, their commitment, and their perseverance. The loss of Patrick’s children is something from which he will never recover and from which there will never be closure. The prospect of reliving this tragedy through another trial is extraordinarily painful -- for Patrick, for his family, and for all us.”
In separate lawsuits, Lindsay and Patrick Clancy allege that various providers failed her, and should have recognized she was a risk to herself and the children.
The providers, at least those who had responded by the time the criminal trial began, deny the allegations and dispute that she clearly told them she intended to harm the kids.
“I don’t think she deserves to have to go through this all over again. I think this should have been resolved,” Marta Quijano said outside the courthouse. She said she’s been following the case since the beginning and has attended the trial.
“It’s very unfair. I feel as women we are treated very unfairly. We get dismissed, things are minimized. Even what’s happened today,” she said, referring to the juror who was singled out in a note from the foreperson. “I think one person failed her.”
Clancy’s parents and her sister were escorted by state police out the back of the courthouse. They said nothing to reporters.
Clancy remains charged with murder and will continue to be held at a psychiatric hospital until her criminal case is resolved.
During remarks to reporters, Reddington spoke affectionately about Clancy, saying “she’s like a daughter to me.”
“My heart breaks. She deserved an acquittal,” he said.
At another point, a reporter noted that Cruz said the focus should remain on the children.
“My client is well aware of the fact that her three kids, who she loved dearly, are the victims in this case,” Reddington said.
“She deserved an acquittal,” he lawyer said.
And despite some sharp exchanges in court, Reddington said he deeply respects the judge. He referred to Sullivan as “Sully” when he talked to reporters.
“He’s a great guy. He was a wonderful defense lawyer before he became a judge. Everybody loves him, he’s a fair guy,” Reddington said.Reddington said his ‘heart breaks’ for Clancy
“She deserved an acquittal,” he lawyer said.
And despite some sharp exchanges in court, Reddington said he deeply respects the judge. He referred to Sullivan as “Sully” when he talked to reporters.
“He’s a great guy. He was a wonderful defense lawyer before he became a judge. Everybody loves him, he’s a fair guy,” Reddington said.
Outside the courthouse, Reddington blasted the juror who he believes stood in the others’ way of an acquittal.
“They know they were robbed by one man, for whatever his agenda was, who stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurors that were so attentive, so beautiful, so wonderful,” he said. “You could see how defeated they were sitting there. I got a funny feeling they would have gone on for another week if they had to. So I hope that guy can sleep well at night.”
Cruz praised trial prosecutors Shanan Buckingham and Jennifer Sprague, “both mothers themselves.”
“They went home to their families after each long day in court. They embraced the most difficult trial assigned to them with utmost professionalism,” he said.
The president said he followed television news coverage of the Lindsay Clancy trial in Plymouth, Massachusetts.
“It’s a terrible situation. Look, she did a horrible, horrible thing,” Trump said. “Can’t be worse. But you’ll find out what the price to pay is. There’ll be a price — a mental institution or jail or something.”
“I have never been swayed to act a certain way or make certain decisions based upon public sentiment,” he said.
“This was and has always been about getting justice for those three little babies. We’re here at this courthouse today because those children are not. ... Children were murdered, and it’s our job to seek justice,” District Attorney Timothy Cruz said.
“This case is not about the healthcare system, or about how women are treated in it,” or the diagnosis of different medical conditions, he said. “Those are all important issues. They stir emotion. Sometimes they stir anger.
“I understand that postpartum depression has impacted the lives of countless women and families, and I sympathize with their struggles. The investigation in these heinous killings, however, did not establish that they were caused by such depression,” Cruz said.
“You only cared when the kids were dead. Why didn’t you care about the mother?” someone yelled.
Someone else yelled, “God bless those children,” as the press conference wrapped up.
“I understand that this has been an emotional trial for everyone,” Plymouth District Attorney Timothy Cruz said.
“This case was about Lindsay Clancy and what she did ... the cruel and calculated killing of three innocents.”
“This was and has always been about getting justice for those three little babies,” Cruz said. “Children were murdered and it’s our job to seek justice.”
Cruz said there would not be an immediate decision about a second trial.
— Correction: This post was updated to correct that Cruz referred to Clancy’s children as “three little babies,” not “beautiful babies.”
Shira Diner, a lecturer at Boston University law school and former public defender, told The Associated Press however that “it seems very unlikely that this judge would agree to overrule what the jury decided, which was nothing, and enter his own opinion.”
After the jury was dismissed, the judge and lawyers discussed their next steps.
The judge set a hearing for Sept. 29 at which Reddington likely will ask Sullivan to declare Clancy not guilty, a rare step but one that is allowed under state law.
The hearing could also reveal details about a possible second trial.
Neither the jury nor Clancy nor her family shows any emotion as the judge announces the mistrial.
Judge Sullivan called court back into session and confirmed that the emergency defense appeal was denied.
The judge said he would declare a mistrial as planned, but Reddington continued to object, saying federal law protecting criminal defendants was being violated.
He again requested a jury inquiry.
And again, the judge denied it, declaring a mistrial and calling jurors into the courtroom.
He then thanked the jurors for their service and dismissed them.
The appeal petition said removing the juror “is particularly important because the juror’s reasoning reflects a bias against those who suffer from debilitating mental illness, a protected category under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and Article 114 of the Massachusetts Constitution.”
Defense attorneys wrote the top court in Massachusetts in their emergency request for relief that the reasoning of one of the jurors “reflects a bias against those who suffer from debilitating mental illness.”
The defense brief says the high court has held that just one juror who is not impartial violates a defendant’s right to have an impartial jury.
It says the trial court judge “need not simply accept the juror’s professions of fidelity and impartiality,” but rather can determine whether the juror is credible in light of the other jurors’ statements.
“The judge appears to be abdicating the responsibility” to weigh the evidence of juror malfeasance, the defense argues. “This is not abuse of discretion; it is failure to exercise discretion at all.”
A member of Massachusetts’ highest court has quickly heard arguments in a last-ditch effort by Clancy’s lawyers to stop a judge from declaring a mistrial.
The defense team wants the court to order the trial judge to further question a juror about applying the law and following instructions during deliberations in the high-profile trial.
Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt heard arguments over video conference and then said, “I need to make a decision.”
She said she’s taking the appeal “under advisement,” and offered no timeline for her decision.
The defense appeal asks the top court in Massachusetts to require the trial judge to do two things:
″(1) to inquire into the ability of the identified juror to apply the law or (2) prohibit the further deliberations of a juror identified by the jury foreperson as biased and refusing to follow the court’s instructions on reasonable doubt unless and until the court determines by individual voir dire that the juror is willing and able to follow the court’s instructions.”
“The judge appears to be abdicating the responsibility to weight the evidence of juror malfeasance. In other words, this is not abuse of discretion; it is failure to exercise discretion at all,” the brief says. “A mistrial at this point is entirely avoidable, but only if the court does its job.”
Participants were told the lunch break would be from 1 p.m.-2 p.m.
Attorney Dana Goldblatt said she filed the emergency appeal on behalf of Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington at 12:29 p.m. on Friday.
Trial judges don’t often allow a defense attorney to file such emergency petitions, said Joseph Perullo, a criminal defense attorney in Massachusetts.
The petition will be considered by a single justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court who will look at whether the trial judge abused his discretion, committed a reversible error of law or did something that is “egregious and should be corrected prior to a mistrial being announced.”
The justice could initially grant a stay pausing the trial court proceedings and then consider the merits of the defense attorney’s petition in a process that would give the prosecutors a chance to present their arguments.
But “that is a high bar,” Perullo said. He doubts the justice will pause the trial proceedings to consider the merits.
More than an hour has passed since the judge gave the defense one hour to file an emergency appeal of his pending mistrial declaration.
Reached for comment, the clerk’s office for the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts told The Associated Press that it is in the process of receiving all the documents related to the emergency appeal.
The case would essentially go back to the same status as before the trial — Clancy could be charged with murder and held at a psychiatric hospital awaiting a resolution of the criminal case.
Prosecutors would have to decide whether to try again with a new jury. If they do, the jury selection process would begin again and a new trial would be scheduled.
Prosecutors could also offer a plea deal to Clancy, said Brad Bailey, a Boston defense attorney and former prosecutor who is not involved in the case.
“Any time the threat of a retrial with murder one hanging over the client is re-interjected, defense lawyers will, at the very least, explore whether or not there’s any interest in a resolution,” Bailey said.
▶ Read more
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague told the judge a mistrial was required because he had already read to the jury the legal instruction sometimes known as a “dynamite charge.”
Reddington argued the judge still had discretion: “The court has the ability to send the jury back,” he said.
Sounding exasperated, the judge said “I don’t feel I have any choice but to declare a mistrial at this time.”
Reddington then requested that the jurors be polled “as to whether or not there has been a decision reached on murder one, murder two, manslaughter or anything like that.” If they did reach such a decision, prosecuting her again on those charges would be double jeopardy, he said.
Sprague objected, saying the court can’t delve into jury deliberations. “I don’t think anything else is required at this point other than a declaration of mistrial unfortunately.”
Sullivan then said, “Over the defendant’s objection, I am going to declare a mistrial at this point.”
Then Reddington pushed back, and the judge gave him one hour to appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Criminal defense attorney Joseph Krowski, who has been observing the trial, commented about Friday’s developments outside the court in Plymouth, Massachusetts. He said the defense wants a judge on the state’s highest court to consider an emergency stay because Reddington believes there “is a structural defect to this trial by the failure to remove the juror or do an inquiry.”
Judge Sullivan read the jury foreperson’s note aloud in open court: “It is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to.”
Sullivan and Reddington went back and forth after the judge signaled that he would declare a mistrial and summon the jury to break the news.
Then the judge suddenly gave Clancy’s lawyer time to seek an appeal to stop his mistrial order.
“What I’m asking for is time to file a single-justice appeal for this travesty,” said Reddington, who was upset over Sullivan’s refusal to remove a juror.
“I’ll hold off for an hour,” the judge said.
The clock began around 11:30 a.m.
Clancy’s parents, Paula and Mike Musgrove, and her sister, Allison Ozga, showed no reaction but stared straight ahead. Clancy’s expression wasn’t visible to the gallery.
The defense then raised objections and the jury was not brought in.
Prosecutors and Reddington are being brought up to a podium and the court clerk showed them something. It is unclear what it was.
Now they’ve returned to their tables and the judge has returned to the bench.
Lindsay Clancy's parents, Mike Musgrove, left, Paula Musgrove walk back to Plymouth County Superior Court after a recess for lunch in Lindsay Clancy's murder trial Friday, Sept. 4, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)
Judge William Sullivan indicates he was going to declare a mistrial before changing course and giving Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney one hour to appeal as the jury in the case has indicated they they are unable to reach a verdict on Friday, Sept. 4, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
District Attorney for Plymouth County Timothy Cruz, front, leaves court after the judge declared a mistrial in Lindsay Clancy's murder trial at Plymouth County Superior Court, Friday, Sept. 4, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington reacts to the judge's decision to declare a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial on Friday, Sept. 4, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
Defendant Lindsay Clancy looks at the jury after Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial in Clancy's murder trial on Friday, Sept. 4, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
Lindsay Clancy watches jury members as Judge William Sullivan polls them during her murder trial at Plymouth Superior Court in Plymouth, Mass., Monday, Aug. 31, 2026. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
Judge William Sullivan asks the jury to continue deliberations during Lindsay Clancy's murder trial at Plymouth Superior Court in Plymouth, Mass., Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2026. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
Mike Musgrove, father of Lindsay Clancy, center right, sits with family as they listen to the judge tell the jury to keep discussing a possible verdict after jurors said they couldn't agree for a second time whether Clancy is criminally responsible for killing her three children in 2023, Wednesday, Sept. 2, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
Timothy Cruz, Plymouth County District Attorney, center, leaves Plymouth Superior Court, Thursday, Sept. 3, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (AP Photo/Josh Reynolds )
Lindsay Clancy and attorney Kevin Reddington watch as Judge William Sullivan tells the jury to keep discussing a possible verdict after jurors said for a second time they couldn't agree whether Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible for killing her three children in 2023, Wednesday, Sept. 2, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
