Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts woman who admits killing her three children in 2023, returned to court on Tuesday as her lawyers asked a judge to end the case against her. Judge William Sullivan, sitting in Plymouth, Massachusetts, did not rule on the requests. He said they would be considered at a hearing on 2 November, and it remains unclear whether Clancy, 36, will face a retrial.
Her first trial ended in a mistrial on 4 September after the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. According to the defence, several jurors later said in televised interviews that they were ready to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, which in Massachusetts means a finding of no criminal responsibility, but that one juror stood in the way. That juror's lawyer, Edward Paltzik, told Fox News his client, Michael Desronvil, had "no doubt" and strictly applied the reasonable-doubt standard. The Plymouth County District Attorney's office has not said publicly whether it will seek a new trial.
It was not disputed at trial that Clancy strangled her children Cora, five, Dawson, three, and Callan, eight months, with exercise bands on 24 January 2023 in the basement of the family home in Duxbury, a Boston suburb. She then cut herself with a knife and jumped from a second-floor window in a suicide attempt, which left her paralysed. The defence argues she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis and did not understand her actions were wrong. Prosecutors say the killings were intentional.
At Tuesday's hearing, defence lawyer Kevin Reddington asked for a not-guilty finding under Rule 25, a Massachusetts rule allowing a judge to enter such a finding when the evidence is insufficient. He also shifted his argument, describing a "total and complete lack of evidence" and saying the case rested on speculation. He said public anger, including calls to execute Clancy, stemmed from a general difficulty in understanding how someone can admit an act yet not be criminally responsible, and he said some of it came from politicians, including President Donald Trump.
Prosecutor Shanan Buckingham called the argument "laughable", saying the state had presented ample evidence that Clancy was mentally healthy and knew what she was doing. "The Commonwealth met its burden," she said.
The defence has also argued that a retrial would violate the protection against double jeopardy, being tried twice for the same crime. It says jury notes show the dissenting juror refused to follow the court's instructions on the standard of proof and should have been dismissed rather than allowing a mistrial. Lawyers have also sought access to normally confidential jury records and permission to question the juror.
Prosecutors could pursue a plea deal or retry Clancy on lesser second-degree murder charges, in which case she could waive a jury and be tried by a judge. First-degree murder carries a life sentence. If found not criminally responsible, she would be committed to a state psychiatric hospital, with periodic court reviews.