As retrial still undecided, DA pushes to limit public statements in Clancy case

Plymouth County Prosecutor Timothy Cruz said Tuesday that his office has not yet decided whether there will be another trial for Lindsay Clancy.

“We’re doing a very thorough review right now and we’re going to continue to do our job to make sure that we’re doing what’s best in the interest of justice,” Cruz said outside the courthouse after a hearing.

Tuesday was Clancy’s first court appearance since his case ended in a mistrial more than three weeks ago. The jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on whether she should be held criminally responsible for the murder of her three children in their Duxbury home in 2023.

The judge in the case, William Sullivan, is considering several motions, including one from Clancy’s attorney asking that she be found not guilty before any retrial. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington argued during the trial for what is known as the insanity defense.

Speaking at Tuesday’s hearing, he said prosecutors had not proven that Clancy killed the three children, much less that she was mentally competent to face first-degree murder charges.

“This whole thing is based on speculation,” Reddington said in court.

Reddington’s request, known as a Rule 25 motion, is a legal filing that allows the defense to ask a judge to find him not guilty, arguing that prosecutors have not provided enough evidence for a jury to convict. Such motions are typically filed in criminal cases but are rarely successful.

Prosecutors opposed the motion, citing “voluminous” evidence that Clancy strangled his three children in the basement of the family home. They repeatedly argued that Clancy was mentally well enough to deliberately plan to kill his children and then attempt to end his life.

A separate motion from prosecutors asked the judge to limit defense attorneys’ comments to the media. They argued that Reddington’s statements during and after the trial could harm the case and dissuade potential jurors if there was another trial.

“Most troubling,” according to the motion, were Reddington’s comments about a particular juror who allegedly had doubts about Clancy’s mental state but did not vote with the other 11 jurors to find her not criminally responsible.

After the hearing, Reddington said he had “no need for silence orders” and was not responsible for the publicity surrounding the “recalcitrant juror,” identified by his attorney as Michael Peguy Desronvil.

“I’m really tired of reading about me attacking this juror, tearing this juror, tearing this juror,” Reddington told reporters outside the courthouse. “I don’t do anything with the juror.”

Attorney Martin Weinberg appeared alongside Reddington to represent Clancy at Tuesday’s hearing. Weinberg filed a motion to dismiss the case on grounds of double jeopardy. He argued the judge should not have declared a mistrial and said a new trial would violate Clancy’s constitutional rights. Sullivan also took that motion under advisement.

Dozens of people, many wearing pink to signify their support for Clancy, lined up early at the Plymouth courthouse for the hearing, awaiting a decision on how the case could move forward. But they were disappointed.

With both sides asking for more time, Sullivan set the next court date for Nov. 2 to hear arguments on the motions and then — perhaps — set a date for another trial.