Judge sets date for Clancy retrial

Lindsay Clancy’s defense team asked a Massachusetts judge on Monday to dismiss the first-degree murder charges against the 36-year-old mother. They argued that a second trial would violate her constitutional rights after a jury failed to reach a verdict in September. The court has now set the stage for a potential retrial, with key dates already on the calendar.

Clancy was charged with strangling her three young children with exercise bands at her home in Duxbury, a Boston suburb, in 2023. Following the deaths, she attempted suicide by cutting herself with a knife and jumping from a second-floor window, an injury that left her paralyzed. She has not disputed that she killed the children, but her legal team contends she suffered from postpartum psychosis and could not control her actions. Prosecutors acknowledge her mental health struggles but maintain she acted deliberately and knew her conduct was wrong.

The motion to dismiss stems from the September trial, which ended in a mistrial when jurors could not agree on a verdict. Defense attorney Martin G Weinberg claimed Judge William Sullivan should have investigated further after the jury foreperson sent notes indicating a juror was not following the rules. Weinberg argued that additional questioning might have revealed grounds to remove juror Michael Desronvil and continue deliberations. He suggested that Sullivan should have questioned the foreperson separately to determine if the holdout was lying about following the law.

Sullivan responded to the jury impasse by speaking with each member, reminding them of their duties and defining reasonable doubt. All jurors stated they could apply the law to the case. Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague defended the judge’s handling of the situation, noting there was no evidence of personal bias or inability to deliberate. Sprague stated that the juror refused to agree rather than refuse to deliberate, and that further questioning risked interfering with the process.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington also raised concerns about the holdout juror, alleging he used a mobile phone to research case-related terms. Reddington questioned whether the juror had been truthful during jury selection. Sullivan did not rule on the dismissal motion immediately. Instead, he scheduled another hearing for November 16 and indicated that a retrial could begin in March.

The court will also consider a motion from the state of Massachusetts for a gag order. The request seeks to bar lawyers and their supporters from making extrajudicial statements to the media that could materially prejudice the criminal proceeding. The next hearing will address this request alongside the dismissal motion.