Judge rejects Lindsay Clancy's bid to dismiss charges after mistrial

Lindsay Clancy may face a second murder trial over the deaths of her three children after a Massachusetts judge on Monday rejected her bid to dismiss the case on double jeopardy grounds.

Her first trial ended with a mistrial on Sept. 4, leaving Clancy without either a conviction or an acquittal. A single juror voted for a first-degree murder conviction, while the 11 others planned to find her not guilty by reason of insanity, BBC News reported.

Clancy’s lawyers said a second prosecution would breach the double jeopardy rule, which protects a person against a second trial for the same crime. They argued Judge William Sullivan had declared the mistrial too soon and could instead have removed, replaced or questioned the holdout before permitting further deliberations.

Sullivan rejected their position in a 17-page order, People reported. “Because the Court concludes that there was a 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,” he wrote.

Juror’s role in the deadlock

Sullivan wrote that questioning the sole holdout during the deadlock “would have been impermissibly coercive.”

He cited Massachusetts law requiring an emergency or another compelling reason to dismiss a juror during deliberations. Neither the juror’s dealings with fellow panelists nor his difficulties with the case satisfied that standard, Sullivan wrote.

The judge said the foreperson’s notes did not reliably establish that the juror, identified in the order as Juror Doe, was unable or unwilling to deliberate or obey the law. The possibility of seating an unreasonably stubborn or eccentric juror was “an unavoidable risk of the jury system,” he wrote in court documents obtained by BBC News.

Later media accounts about the juror did not alter Sullivan’s assessment. “The Court made its decision based on what was known at the time,” he wrote.

The defense sought the juror’s phone records and court records from selection and deliberations, along with an opportunity to question him under oath. Sullivan denied the requests. He wrote that granting them “would be an improper intrusion into this juror's privacy and would serve to discourage citizens from being willing to serve as jurors in the future.”

“The Court understands the frustration of the defendant and the jurors that despite the utmost diligence, the jury ultimately was unable to reach a verdict in this emotionally grueling and complicated case,” Sullivan wrote.

Prosecutors’ request denied

Sullivan also turned down prosecutors’ request for a gag order barring Clancy’s attorneys from speaking to the media before a retrial. He wrote that “the Commonwealth has failed to meet its burden to justify the extreme remedy of a prior restraint.”

Prosecutors can renew the request if circumstances change, Sullivan said, while reminding defense lawyer Kevin Reddington of his ethical obligations.

People sought comment from Reddington and fellow defense attorney Martin Weinberg, but neither replied.

Prosecutors have not announced whether they will pursue another trial or seek a plea deal. They could also reduce or dismiss the charges, BBC News reported.

Prosecutors allege that Clancy intentionally strangled Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, eight months, at their Duxbury home on Jan. 24, 2023. Clancy has not disputed that she killed her children; her lawyers argue she was experiencing severe postpartum psychosis, the BBC reported.

Last month, Sullivan rejected a defense request for a not-guilty finding based on its argument that prosecutors presented insufficient evidence at trial. Clancy remains in state custody at Tewksbury Hospital, a state-run psychiatric hospital.

Clancy is due in court Nov. 16, when Sullivan plans to discuss a possible second trial’s schedule. He previously said he would like a new trial to start in March 2027.