Lindsay Clancy returned to a Massachusetts courtroom Monday for a hearing that could determine the date of her triple murder retrial for killing her children — or whether it will take place at all.
The parties should discuss scheduling a new trial and the defense attempts to investigate a holdout juror whose belief in Clancy’s guilt led to a mistrial in September.
Although Judge William Sullivan has already denied several defense requests, a motion to dismiss the case on grounds of double criminality and other issues remains pending.
Prosecutors have not yet indicated whether they intend to try Clancy a second time. And there remains the slim possibility of a plea deal that could end the case.
Monday’s hearing is the latest development in a triple murder case that this summer became one of the most hotly debated criminal trials in recent memory before ending in a mistrial.
Prosecutors had argued that Clancy, 36, “acted intentionally, rationally and quickly” when she fatally strangled her three children in their Duxbury home and attempted suicide in January 2023. Her defense argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time and was not criminally responsible for the death of 5-year-old Cora; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months.
Clancy’s The trial has shone a spotlight on mothers’ mental health, the Internet’s conspiracy-mongering tendencies, and continued skepticism of the so-called “insanity defense.”
After more than a month of testimony, the 12-person jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision due to a single holdout juror, leaving an 11-1 split in favor of not guilty due to a lack of criminal liability. Sullivan declared a mistrial due to the impasse.
Clancy did not testify at the trial. She was detained at Tewksbury Hospital shortly after the murders and was left partially paralyzed due to her suicide attempt.
She faces life in prison if convicted. If jurors find she cannot be held criminally responsible, the court will likely begin the process of committing her to a psychiatric hospital.
Following the mistrial, Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, filed several motions seeking to prevent a new trial. In late September, Clancy appeared in court for the first time since the trial ended, and the parties argued several of them.
Reddington is seeking more information about the holdout juror, including some cellphone records and his juror questionnaire, and is asking the judge to question him about some of his sworn statements, according to a filing.
The holdout, Michael Péguy Desronvil, said his position had been misrepresented by some of his fellow jurors who spoke to the press.
Reddington previously asked the court in a filing to hold an evidentiary hearing to further question the lone holdout juror. Sullivan denied that request on Oct. 21, saying it was raised too late and was an “inappropriate” invasion of the jury’s privacy.
“This Court concludes that any further judicial inquiry is inappropriate, given the mandate that the court shall not inquire into a juror’s subjective reasoning, thought process, view of the case, or relationship with other jurors, and shall not inquire into the jury’s deliberate content, collective thought process, or any disagreement within the jury,” the judge wrote.
In another filing, Reddington asked the judge to dismiss the charges to avoid violating Clancy’s rights protecting her from double jeopardy, a legal ban on prosecuting a person more than once for the same offense. He argued the judge improperly refused to further question the holdout juror or jury foreperson during deliberations and declared a mistrial without “manifest necessity,” a high legal burden meaning all other options for reaching a verdict were exhausted.
In contrast, prosecutors argued in a filing that the judge properly questioned jurors in court and followed the law in declaring a mistrial.
At that September court hearing, Reddington asked the judge to find her not guilty, arguing that prosecutors had not provided enough evidence that she had killed her children. “Where is the evidence that she did this?” he said.
The prosecution called the argument “laughable” and Judge Sullivan rejected the defense argument days later.
Gn usa
