Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts woman accused of murdering her three children in 2023, will return to court Monday for a hearing that could determine whether she gets a new trial.
Her defense team argued Monday that she could not be retried on grounds of double jeopardy, meaning a defendant cannot be prosecuted twice for the same crime, in an attempt to get the charges dropped.
In court, defense attorney Martin Weinberg argued that the prosecution must prove that the manifest necessity standard was met to warrant a mistrial and, therefore, a new trial.
But Weinberg said the defense team believes there should have first been a voir dire, or questioning, of the holdout juror “that could have further established that the reasons were personal, rather than simply due to the internal chemistry of the jury’s deliberations.”
That questioning, Weinberg argued, could have led to the juror’s dismissal, allowing deliberations to continue with another juror, “and that is the viable alternative that we believe defeats the clear necessity that the rule for double jeopardy requires,” he said in court.
In response, Assistant Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague said the court must determine whether manifest necessity was met based on what happened in court and what the court knew at the time, not based on information revealed in the media after the trial.
“Your decision to state it in this trial must be evaluated based on what happened here in this courtroom,” Sprague told the judge. “In cases where a mistrial had already been declared, it is clear from the record that that juror did not refuse to deliberate; he refused to agree.”
In a motion filed Thursday, the prosecution asked the judge to deny Clancy’s motion to dismiss the charges against her, arguing they have the right to seek justice for her three murdered children, even though the first trial ended in a mistrial in September.
The defense team is also expected to try to argue for reduced charges as an alternative, which could pave the way for a bench trial instead of a second jury trial.
Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, however, indicated during the final week of the trial that he was prepared to begin a new trial as soon as possible. Days after the judge declared a mistrial in the state’s case, he also asked President Donald Trump to pardon his client. Presidents can only pardon federal offenses.
The defense will also argue for preserving juror records and investigating the lone holdout juror, who other jurors said was the only obstacle to a unanimous decision.
Prosecutors are expected to file a motion Monday barring lawyers and law enforcement involved in the case from speaking to the media.
Clancy is accused of strangling her three children – Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months – with exercise bands on the evening of January 24, 2023, before throwing herself out of her bedroom window in a suicide attempt that left her paralyzed and in a wheelchair.
During her trial, Reddington argued that Clancy suffered from postpartum psychosis and was forced to act on auditory hallucinations when she committed the murders.
Prosecutors, however, said she knew about his actions and planned the killings in advance. She wasn’t actually psychotic when she killed the children, they said.
It remains unclear whether both sides will argue the same facts in the event of a new trial.
The jury deadlocked three times, forcing Judge William Sullivan to declare a mistrial, despite Reddington’s best efforts to attempt a last-minute emergency stay. Dalila Argaez Wendlandt, associate justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, later denied it.
The foreman reported a draft dodger who he said was violating the law “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Jurors have since weighed in, with several of them nominating a juror who they said would not meet the standard of reasonable doubt and was the only one of the 12 jurors who wanted to convict Clancy. They said he would not engage in discussions and did not provide evidence to support his reasoning.
The lone juror, Michael P. Desronvil, has since said he has felt harassed since the trial ended and insisted he “had no doubt.”
The trial captivated the nation as online sleuths peddled conspiracy theories that Clancy was not the one who killed the children. Rather, it was her then-husband, Patrick Clancy, who committed the murders and accused her of it.
In a statement following the first trial, Patrick Clancy’s lawyers criticized the true crime creators who pushed these theories and called them a “disinformation campaign” that was “publishing what they know to be outright lies that Patrick was somehow involved in the deaths of his young children and other vile claims.”
The lawyers added that “all appropriate measures will be taken to hold them accountable, including legally” and that “law enforcement has been informed.”
Patrick Clancy testified for the prosecution at the first trial, detailing the horrors he experienced at his home as he returned from shopping the night of the murders. He also filed a civil suit against Clancy’s doctors, alleging that diagnostic errors and multiple prescription medications worsened his condition.
Reddington told NBC News that Clancy rejects these conspiracy theories about her ex-husband.
“She knows, and it’s obvious that Patrick was attacked and his life was turned upside down into a nightmare that he doesn’t deserve. Period. Period,” Reddington said in September.
He added that after the trial, Clancy “wasn’t very good” and remained “suicidal.”
“She’s strong. She has incredible family support,” he said of his client. “But she’s suicidal. I mean, she’s under personal surveillance 24/7. I worry about her every day.”
Gn usa
