Judge rejects bid to dismiss Lindsay Clancy murder charges, clearing way for retrial

The judge's ruling

On Monday, 9 November, Judge William Sullivan in Plymouth, Massachusetts, rejected a defence motion to end the murder case against Lindsay Clancy. Her lawyers had argued that a second trial would subject her to double jeopardy, the rule that bars a person from being tried twice for the same crime. Sullivan disagreed, finding that the mistrial declared in September was justified by the jury's deadlock. He wrote:

“a retrial on the murder indictments does not violate Clancy's right not to be placed in double jeopardy”

The ruling clears the way for prosecutors to pursue a second trial. Sullivan also denied prosecutors' request for a gag order that would apply while the case is pending, a step meant to avoid influencing a future jury. Clancy's lawyers had argued such an order would amount to an unconstitutional restraint on speech. He further refused a motion to see records of the lone holdout juror and to question that juror under oath. The defence had filed three motions in total, including the request to dismiss.

The first trial and the deadlock

Sullivan declared a mistrial on 4 September after the 12-person jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. The defence argued he should have removed the one juror who favoured conviction and let deliberations continue, pointing to jury notes that questioned whether that juror was applying reasonable doubt correctly despite the judge's directions. Observador reports that 11 jurors had found Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, leaving the final juror as the sole dissent. Some jurors later told televised interviews that, without the holdout, they would have reached the same verdict, which would have sent her to a state psychiatric hospital under regular court review. Her defence says she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time, while prosecutors accept she had mental health problems but argue she acted deliberately and knew her actions were wrong. A first-degree murder conviction in Massachusetts would bring a mandatory life term with no parole.

Favoured insanity verdict11

Favoured conviction1

Favoured insanity verdict

11 jurors

Favoured conviction

1 jurors

Data from the article text

The case behind the charges

The three children, aged five, three and eight months, were killed in January 2023 in the basement of the family home in Duxbury, a Boston suburb. Clancy, a nurse aged 33 at the time according to Observador, is facing three murder charges. She has not denied killing them, and her defence rests on her mental state rather than on the fact of the deaths. Prosecutors have acknowledged her mental health problems but maintain the killings were intentional.

What comes next

Prosecutors, under Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz, have said they intend to retry Clancy but have not decided whether to pursue the same charges or a reduced one that might be more palatable to a jury. They argued the judge handled the impasse appropriately and that questioning the holdout could have risked improper interference with deliberations. A hearing on 16 November will set when the second trial takes place, and Sullivan has previously suggested it could begin in March. Kevin Reddington, Clancy's lawyer, gave interviews during the trial, while prosecutors generally declined to speak to reporters. The double jeopardy argument has now been rejected, but no retrial date has been fixed.