Lindsay Clancy’s attorney has requested that the judge declare her not guilty just days following the mistrial

He asserts that prosecutors failed to meet their burden and claims that the split jury is unrelated to the matter.

Kevin Reddington submitted a renewed motion on Thursday, requesting Judge William Sullivan to declare Lindsay Clancy not guilty, just six days after her five-week murder trial concluded in a mistrial. His argument asserts that prosecutors presented insufficient evidence for any juror genuinely pursuing the truth to establish guilt on every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

What he submitted is a sufficiency motion. That indicates he is not contending that the jury made an error or that a retrial would be unjust. He contends that the state's case never met the necessary legal standards from the outset and that when the evidence fails to reach that threshold, the judge has the authority to resolve the issue independently instead of referring it to another jury. He stated that a reasonable jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy had a mental disease or defect, given that the Commonwealth's own evidence demonstrated this. Timing is determined by court rule. A motion of this nature may be renewed within five days following the discharge of a jury if the judge has previously denied it during the trial, as was the case with Sullivan. The mistrial was declared on September 4.

Reddington was clear that this matter transcends the figures in the jury room. Jury foreperson Roni Carlson reported that the panel was divided 11 to 1 in support of a not guilty verdict for Clancy based on insanity. Reddington asserts that the motion hinges on the sufficiency of the evidence presented by prosecutors, rather than the proximity of the jury's decision.

That distinction is significant for the subsequent developments, as he has a second motion approaching that indeed hinges on the jury. At Clancy’s hearing on September 29, he intends to file a motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy grounds, contending that there was no manifest necessity for Sullivan to declare a mistrial initially. Manifest necessity is the criterion a judge must satisfy before concluding a trial prematurely while maintaining the state's right to retry the case. A hung jury typically resolves the matter with little contention. Reddington argues that this situation did not warrant a mistrial, as the foreperson informed the court that one juror expressed doubt but did not apply it to the verdict as mandated by law. He contends that Sullivan should have questioned that juror before deciding to terminate the trial, rather than viewing a mistrial as the sole alternative.

Two motions, two distinct mechanisms, each directed toward a singular outcome. The sufficiency motion requests that the judge conclude the case with a determination of not guilty. The double jeopardy motion requests that the judge prevent the state from prosecuting her once more.

The jury, composed of nine women and three men, engaged in deliberations for seven days starting on August 27. They faced five options: not guilty by reason of insanity, not guilty, first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter. Reddington requested that Sullivan eliminate the holdout juror prior to the mistrial, but the request was denied. He requested that the judge conduct a survey of the jury regarding a lesser charge initially, which would have removed first-degree murder from consideration for any retrial, but his request was denied. He had one hour to file an emergency appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court, but Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt denied it on Friday afternoon. She did not make a ruling on double jeopardy, which is why that question remains unresolved.

Clancy, a 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse, entered a plea of not guilty to three counts of first-degree murder concerning the deaths of her children, Cora, Dawson, and Callan, at their Duxbury residence on January 24, 2023. Her defense did not contest that she was responsible for their deaths. The defense argued that she had been overmedicated and was experiencing postpartum psychosis, which rendered her not criminally responsible. Prosecutors contended that she premeditated the murders and was aware of the distinction between right and wrong. Five medical professionals who provided care for her mental health gave testimony, alongside her husband Patrick Clancy, his parents, her mother and sister, a former babysitter, a former colleague, and a longtime friend.

Clancy has spent the majority of her time since 2023 at Tewksbury State Hospital, and a sheriff’s van brought her back there just hours after the mistrial. A verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity would have resulted in her being committed to state psychiatric care, with regular reviews for potential release, rather than being sent home. The motion Reddington filed Thursday requests something distinct from that.

Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not indicated whether his office will pursue a retrial in the case.