A Lindsay Clancy retrial could begin in March, but only if a Massachusetts judge rejects her lawyers’ bid to throw out the case.
Clancy, 36, returned to Plymouth Superior Court on Monday for a hearing on post-trial motions, about two months after her first trial ended without a verdict. Judge William Sullivan suggested the March timeline but did not immediately rule on the defense’s double jeopardy motion, The Associated Press reported. He set another hearing for Nov. 16 and said he would have an answer by then, according to WBUR.
Clancy is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the January 2023 deaths of her children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, at the family’s Duxbury home. She has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent.
Prosecutors say they’ll try again
Monday’s hearing answered a question that had hung over the case since the mistrial. “This will be a retrial, as to what that looks like will depend,” Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague said, according to Fox. “We’re not at that point yet.”
The AP reported that prosecutors haven’t settled on whether to pursue the same charges or a reduced charge if the case moves forward.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington pressed for a quick decision and said he wants Sullivan to preside over any second trial. “I am not going to have this woman sit incarcerated for the next year, or two or three,” he said. “I want a trial and I want it with you and I want it this spring.”
The double jeopardy fight
Sullivan declared a mistrial Sept. 4 after the jury deadlocked. Jurors were split 11-1 in favor of acquittal, with the holdout favoring conviction. The 11 were prepared to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, several jurors have said in televised interviews.
Double jeopardy bars trying someone twice for the same crime, but a retrial can generally go forward if a mistrial was justified by “manifest necessity.” Clancy’s lawyers argue that standard wasn’t met. Martin Weinberg, another member of her defense team, told Sullivan on Monday that the mistrial could have been avoided had he questioned jurors more thoroughly after the foreperson sent two notes saying the holdout wasn’t following instructions on reasonable doubt.
Sprague countered that Sullivan struck the right balance and that going further would have meant delving into the substance of deliberations. In a filing ahead of the hearing, prosecutors said they “should be permitted to continue to pursue justice for Cora, Dawson and Callan Clancy.”
Earlier rulings went against the defense
The double jeopardy motion is one of several the defense filed after the mistrial. Sullivan has already rejected two others.
At a Sept. 29 hearing, Reddington sought a finding of not guilty and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, even though the defense hadn’t disputed at trial that Clancy killed her children. “This entire case is based on speculation,” he said at the hearing. “Where is the admission?” Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham called the argument “laughable.” Sullivan denied the motion Oct. 1.
On Oct. 21, he refused an evidentiary hearing on the holdout juror. “This Court concludes that any further judicial inquiry is inappropriate, given the mandate that the court must not delve into a juror’s subjective reasoning, thought process, view of the case, or relationship to the other jurors,” he wrote.
Monday’s hearing showed the dispute isn’t over. Reddington again urged Sullivan to look into the juror, accusing him of being untruthful on his jury questionnaire and improperly using his cellphone during deliberations. The judge admonished Reddington to stop saying the juror’s name in open court. “Why don’t we all dial this back a little bit,” Sullivan said at one point.
The juror’s attorney, Heather O’Connor, disputed the cellphone allegation and said all jurors were allowed to keep their phones. “We are here because Juror Doe did not vote the way that the defense needed,” she said.
Sullivan also heard arguments on a prosecution request for a gag order. Clancy’s lawyers said it would be an unconstitutional restraint on speech. He hasn’t ruled on that request either.
The case so far
Clancy did not testify at her first trial. Prosecutors told jurors she “acted intentionally, rationally, and swiftly,” according to Court TV. The defense argued she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was not criminally responsible.
Clancy remains at Tewksbury Hospital, where she has been held since 2023. She is paralyzed from the chest down after a suicide attempt following the children’s deaths, WBUR reported.
What’s next
The Nov. 16 hearing could settle the biggest open question. If Sullivan denies the motion to dismiss, a retrial date may follow, along with pressure on prosecutors to say what charges Clancy will face.
Timing matters. Sullivan faces mandatory retirement when he turns 70 in June, according to WBUR, so a trial that slips past spring could land in front of a different judge.
A plea deal remains possible as well. Reddington has said he’d be open to one that avoids prison.
More True Crime news from Total Apex Entertainment.
Don't stop here
Every Score. Every Story. One Home.
Breaking sports, entertainment and news from across the Total Apex network, updated all day.
Get the Full Story →
