Clancy's lawyer now argues prosecutors never proved she killed her children, while still maintaining she was psychotic at the time.
Lindsay Clancy's attorney tried her trial on a single question: was she criminally responsible for killing her three children during a psychotic break. Back in court for the first time since that trial ended in a mistrial, he argued something further: that prosecutors never proved she did it at all.
What happened Tuesday
Clancy, 36, appeared in Plymouth Superior Court on Sept. 29 for the first time since a Sept. 4 mistrial. Attorney Kevin Reddington filed a Rule 25 motion asking the judge to enter a not-guilty finding, arguing the Commonwealth never proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy killed Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, in the basement of their Duxbury home in January 2023. "This entire case is based on speculation. Where is the admission?" Reddington told Judge William Sullivan, calling the police investigation "horrific" and "ridiculous" for failing to collect evidence proving she killed the children.
No one at trial disputed that Clancy strangled the children with exercise bands, then cut herself with a knife and jumped from a second-story window in an attempt to end her own life, leaving her paralyzed. Reddington did not name or point to another person as responsible. Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham called his argument "laughable" and noted it was being raised for the first time.
Not a full swap
At trial, Reddington argued Clancy was in the grip of postpartum psychosis and did not know what she was doing was wrong. He kept that argument Tuesday rather than dropping it, telling Sullivan that every doctor who testified at trial found she was suffering from a serious mental disease at the time of the killings. "The evidence shows clearly and unequivocally that she was in a state of psychosis", he said. The new argument did not replace the old one. It was added on top of it: Reddington now contends both that Clancy was psychotic and that the Commonwealth never proved she committed the act.
Buckingham did not dispute that Clancy has mental health issues, but argued the evidence showed she knew what she was doing. "She had succumbed to the idea that she didn't want to be here anymore, that she was going to commit suicide, and that she was going to take those kids with her because no one could care for them like she could," Buckingham said, describing the prosecution's theory that the killings were a decided act tied to her own suicide attempt, not an unknowing break with reality.
A required finding of not guilty is a high legal bar. The judge has to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, not decide who is more believable. That standard makes an outright grant of Reddington's motion unlikely, though not impossible.
A separate fight over pretrial publicity
Prosecutors also asked Sullivan for a gag order, arguing the first trial's "carnival atmosphere" had "inevitably tainted" the jury pool for any retrial. They pointed to a series of televised interviews in which Reddington called Clancy "wonderful," publicly asked President Trump to pardon her, and, in prosecutors' words, spoke about the mistrial's holdout juror "in ways that ensured that juror would be publicly identified." That juror, Michael Desronvil, said in a video statement aired on Fox News that attention since the mistrial had shifted to him instead of "on the three angels." Sullivan said he would take up the gag order request, along with the defense's other pending motions, at the Nov. 2 hearing.
Where the case stands
Sullivan did not rule on Reddington's not-guilty motion from the bench, but told both sides to be ready to discuss a retrial date when the case reconvenes Nov. 2. "I think it's important that this case move forward if it has to move forward," he said. A second defense motion, filed by attorney Martin Weinberg, seeks dismissal on double jeopardy grounds, arguing the mistrial should not have been declared in the first place. The defense has also asked for a limited inquiry into the holdout juror.
The stakes on each side are fixed by statute, not argument. A first-degree murder conviction carries a mandatory life sentence. A not-guilty finding by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, the standard eleven of twelve jurors favored at trial, would commit Clancy to a state psychiatric hospital, with her confinement subject to ongoing court review rather than a fixed release date. Prosecutors have other paths available short of a full retrial, including a plea deal or pursuing lesser second-degree murder charges, which would let Clancy waive a jury and proceed before a judge alone.
Clancy remains paralyzed from the waist down and is being held at Tewksbury State Hospital under the same pretrial status she held before the mistrial. Nothing changes for her until Nov. 2, and District Attorney Timothy Cruz's office still has not said whether it intends to retry her.
Sources:
Reuters, Lindsay Clancy returns to court for key hearing after U.S. murder case mistrial
CBS News Boston, Lindsay Clancy's lawyer says there's no evidence she admitted to killing her children
WBUR, With retrial still undecided, DA pushes to limit public statements
CBS News, Lindsay Clancy trial ends in mistrial with no verdict. What happens next?
Have a correction or tip? See our
corrections policy or contact the newsroom.
