A Massachusetts judge on Monday denied a defense request to dismiss the murder charges against Lindsay Clancy, ruling that a second trial would not violate constitutional protections against double jeopardy, according to court documents obtained by the BBC.
Judge Denies Defense Motion
Judge William Sullivan of Plymouth Superior Court issued the ruling following a mistrial declared in September after jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse, is accused in the January 2023 deaths of her three young children—5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan—at the family’s home in Duxbury, as reported by Newsweek.
BREAKING: Three MAJOR rulings in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder case. Judge William Sullivan DENIED Clancy's motion to dismiss the murder charges on double jeopardy grounds, ruling that the deadlocked jury did justify the September mistrial. He also DENIED the defense's… pic.twitter.com/fa0elZbPMK
“Because the court concludes that there was manifest necessity for a mistrial based on the jury's deadlock, a retrial on the murder indictments does not violate Clancy's right not to be placed in double jeopardy,” Judge William Sullivan wrote.
Clancy did not deny killing her children during the trial. Her defense team argued she suffered from severe postpartum mental illness and postpartum psychosis, leaving her without criminal responsibility. Prosecutors maintained that her actions were deliberate and that she understood what she was doing. After weeks of testimony and three notes to the judge stating they were deadlocked, the jury could not reach a verdict, prompting the September 4 mistrial.
Double Jeopardy Arguments Rejected
Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, argued that the case should be dismissed because Judge Sullivan declared the mistrial too quickly without adequately investigating alternatives. These included removing or questioning a lone holdout juror. The defense contended that retrying Clancy would constitute double jeopardy.
Judge Sullivan also denied defense requests to view records of the holdout juror. He denied requests to question that juror under oath, stating that the defense failed to show the records were needed for a retrial and that questioning the juror would be impermissibly coercive.
Sullivan noted that the foreperson’s accusations did not prove the holdout was refusing to follow the law, suggesting the notes might simply reflect the majority’s frustration with a juror who disagreed with their interpretation of the evidence.
Prosecution Gag Request Denied
Judge Sullivan rejected a prosecution request for a gag order that would have barred attorneys, witnesses, and other participants from discussing the case publicly. The judge stated that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that extrajudicial speech posed a serious threat of harm to the jury venire or retrial outcome, though he noted the request could be renewed if circumstances change.
Judge Sullivan scheduled a hearing for November 16 to address scheduling and discuss the path forward, having previously suggested a potential second trial could begin in March 2027.
Earlier coverage: Lindsay Clancy Defense Seeks Dismissal of Murder Charges