PLYMOUTH, Mass. — Lindsay Clancy 's lawyer urged a judge Monday to either the dismiss the murder charges against her, or get on with the business of putting her back on trial.
This was the second time the Massachusetts mother has been in court since her first trial with ended with a deadlocked jury unable to agree whether she was legally responsible for killing her three young children. Jurors were split 11-1 in favor of acquittal when the judge declared a mistrial.
Clancy's defense team moved to dismiss the charges on double jeopardy grounds, based on an unusual argument that the judge should have removed the one juror who favored conviction, then allowed jury deliberations to continue.
Judge William Sullivan did not immediately rule on Monday. Clancy's lawyer, Kevin Reddington, implored him to decide quickly, and also pressed the Plymouth District Attorney to reveal soon whether he plans to try Clancy on murder charges again.
“I am not going to have this woman sit incarcerated for the next year, or two or three,” Reddington said. Putting aside his sharp disagreement with the judge about the way the first trial ended, he said he wants Sullivan to preside over a second trial, if one happens. “I want a trial and I want it with you and I want it this spring.”
Sullivan scheduled another hearing for Nov. 16 and suggested a retrial could begin in March.
Prosecutors said they intend to retry Clancy if the case proceeds, but haven’t yet settled on whether they would pursue the same charges, or opt for a reduced charge that might be more palatable for the jury.
Clancy's lawyer has argued that she had postpartum psychosis and was unable to control her behavior when she killed her three children in 2023. Prosecutors have acknowledged that Clancy had mental health problems, but said she acted deliberately and understood her actions were wrong.
Hearing had heated moments
Reddington has staked part of his post-trial defense on assailing the one juror who wanted to convict Clancy.
He urged the judge again on Monday to investigate that juror, whom he accused of being untruthful on his jury questionnaire and improperly using his cell phone during jury deliberations.
At one point, Sullivan admonished Reddington to stop using the juror's name in open court. Sullivan has a standing order sealing the names of the jurors temporarily to protect them from harassment — though several have done media interviews, including the holdout, Michael Desronvil. Reddington protested that the juror's name "was all over the internet."
“Why don’t we all dial this back a little bit,” Sullivan said at one point.
Defense challenges judge’s handling of deadlocked jury
Another of Clancy's lawyers, Martin Weinberg, argued Monday that a mistrial could have been avoided had the judge more thoroughly interrogated jurors about their breakdown in deliberations after the foreperson sent two notes indicating that the lone holdout wasn't following the court's instructions on reasonable doubt.
After receiving the notes, Sullivan spoke with each juror, reminded them of their duties and explained what constitutes reasonable doubt. He asked whether they could apply the law to the case, and all said yes.
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague argued Monday that Sullivan had struck the right balance — and that pressing further would have required delving into the substance of the jury’s deliberations, which isn't allowed.
Juror's lawyer defends his conduct
Desronvil said in a recent interview that he was certain of Clancy’s guilt, but other jurors wouldn't listen.
His lawyer, Heather O’Connor, urged the judge Monday not to investigate his conduct any further, saying he had simply done his duty as a juror.
She disputed the allegations of improper cellphone use, saying all jurors were allowed to keep their phones and there was no evidence Desronvil had used his device to improperly research the case.
“If that’s enough to put a juror under oath, to search their phone, to pull their history, then the lesson (for) every future juror in this Commonwealth is simple: Agree with the majority or potentially be investigated,” O'Connor said.
Sullivan also heard arguments on the prosecutors' request for a gag order while the case remains pending, to avoid influencing a future jury. Reddington gave interviews during the trial, while prosecutors generally did not speak to reporters. Clancy’s lawyers argued that it would amount to an unconstitutional restraint on speech.
__
AP journalist Leah Willingham contributed from Boston.