Judge Weighs Dismissal of Lindsay Clancy’s Homicide Charges After Mistrial
Defense argues the trial judge erred in declaring a mistrial, while prosecutors seek a gag order to control public commentary.
By Thomas Obasi ·
Lindsay Clancy returned to Plymouth Superior Court on Monday to fight a second murder trial for the deaths of her three children. Defense attorneys Kevin Reddington and Martin G. Weinberg asked Judge William F. Sullivan to dismiss the charges, arguing that a second attempt would violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
The judge took the dismissal request under advisement after hearing forty minutes of argument. The decision hinges on whether Sullivan made a legal error when he declared a mistrial on September 4. The defense contends the judge should have investigated a holdout juror who refused to follow instructions on reasonable doubt.
Clancy, 36, admitted to strangling Cora, age five, Dawson, age three, and Callan, eight months old, with exercise bands on January 24, 2023. She killed the children in the basement of their Duxbury home after sending her then-husband Patrick to pick up medication and dinner. She then slashed her wrists and neck and jumped from a second-story window, leaving her paralyzed from the waist down.
Clancy pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. She claims postpartum psychosis caused her to hallucinate a man’s voice commanding her to kill herself and her children. Her lawyers presented evidence that she sought help for depression, anxiety, and insomnia after her third child’s birth. They accused medical providers of prescribing medications that worsened her condition and led to a psychotic break.
Prosecutors counter that Clancy received appropriate care and failed to disclose all her symptoms. They argue she was depressed and exhausted but chose to end her misery. Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague opposed the dismissal, writing that singling out a juror for inquiry would be tantamount to judicial coercion.
During Monday’s hearing, Sullivan rebuked Reddington for naming the holdout juror in open court. The attorney was arguing for a review of the juror’s answers on a questionnaire regarding prior arrests. Sullivan told him there was no need to use the man’s name in the courtroom. Reddington replied that the juror had more face time than the judge, referencing recent media interviews. Sullivan noted that the juror’s attorney from Houston was sitting in the back row.
Sullivan said he did not make rulings that gave the juror that attention. He declared a short recess just before 11 a.m. to consider the motion. The hearing will continue after the break. If Sullivan denies the motion to dismiss, he could set a new trial date.
The case has drawn international attention. Prosecutors are now pushing for a gag order to bar the defense from publicly commenting while the case is pending. They argue that media comments could taint the potential jury pool. Defense lawyer Laura B. McConnell called the request prior restraint, saying it protects a jury that does not yet exist and a trial that has not been scheduled. She stated that the order singles out one side’s speech about discharged jurors.
The mistrial occurred after a six-week trial ended in September. Jurors sent repeated notes to Sullivan indicating they could not reach a unanimous verdict. The foreperson wrote that eleven jurors voted to acquit based on insanity, while one holdout refused to follow the judge’s instructions on the law. Sullivan questioned each juror in private but denied a deeper investigation, citing the proper scope of jury deliberations. He also denied a request to replace the juror with an alternate.
Reddington and Weinberg argue Sullivan’s refusal to investigate the juror’s behavior was a mistake. They maintain the juror violated his oath. Sullivan has not yet ruled on whether that error warrants a full dismissal of the three first-degree murder counts.
