10
Loading video...
By Hannah Parry and Alice Gibbs
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer urged a judge to dismiss the case and enter a finding of not guilty as she returned to court on Tuesday for the first time since her murder trial collapsed.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington argued that prosecutors failed to present sufficient evidence that Clancy killed her three children and failed to prove she was not suffering from psychosis at the time of their deaths.
“Where’s the evidence that she did this?” he asked the court, adding: “I submit to the court that a motion for a required finding of not guilty should have been entered on the total and complete lack of evidence."
Read More on News
Prosecutors said the state "met its burden" in proving Clancy's guilt.
Judge William Sullivan said he will consider the defense's request to fully dismiss the case in a new hearing on November 2.
...
What Did Clancy's Lawyers Say at Tuesday's Hearing?
Reddington took the stand to argue for an overrule of the mistrial verdict to find Clancy not guilty.
“I submit to the court that a motion for a required finding of not guilty should have been entered on the total and complete lack of evidence,” Reddington said.
Reddington continued to make his case that Clancy should be found not guilty. “This entire case is based on speculation. Where is the admission? Where did she say that she did this?” he said, while calling the police investigation "hideous" and suggesting they did not properly look into the case at the time.
He added that “if any case justifies a Bowden instruction it’s this one,” and that the jury “immediately assumed this woman is guilty.”
A Bowden instruction is a court direction that lets a jury consider mistakes or missing elements of a police investigation when deciding if a defendant is guilty.
Tuesday’s hearing was the first time that Clancy’s defense appeared to suggest that Clancy did not kill her children, something that so far has not been disputed. So far Clancy has not disputed that she killed the children, but the defense argues that she should be found not guilty as a result of her mental state at the time of the killings.
Reddington argued that Clancy should be found not guilty due to a lack of sufficient evidence that she killed her children, as well as not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility due to a lack of evidence she was not in psychosis at the time.
Defense attorney Martin Weinberg also presented the post-trial motion requesting access to the jurors’ questionnaires, asking the judge not to impound jury notes and transcripts of sidebar discussions.
What Did Prosecutors Say at Tuesday's Hearing?
Shanan Buckingham Assistant District Attorney said on Tuesday that the argument that there is not enough evidence to suggest Clancy is guilty is a “laughable argument.”
She added her surprise at the suggestion that Clancy did not kill the children. “Now for the first time the defendant is arguing that there’s no evidence that she did this,” Buckingham said. “I suggest to you that the entire record is luminous as to the information supporting the fact that she did this. We have that she was the only one in the home with three young children, we have that her husband testified under oath that he left the house, that she sent him out on those errands.”
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague rejected the idea of releasing jury notes about the deadlock, adding that releasing them would have a “chilling effect” on the American judicial system.
“If we get a jury, will that jury feel comfortable sending a note to the court knowing it might become public?” she said.
Related Video
00:13
Lindsay Clancy Holdout Juror Had ‘Zero Doubt’: Lawyer
Related Story
Holdout Juror’s Attorney Says Lindsay Clancy’s Lawyer ‘Lost His Mind’
Newsweek has reached out to Reddington and Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague for comment.
Lindsay Clancy's Case Was Declared a Mistrial. What Happens Next?
Clancy, 36, is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the January 2023 deaths of her children, Cora, Dawson and Callan. Her defense argued during the six-week trial that she was not criminally responsible because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.
The jury deliberated for seven days before becoming deadlocked, reportedly 11-1 in favor of finding Clancy not criminally responsible. Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on September 4.
The mistrial does not, by itself, prevent prosecutors from trying Clancy again. Reddington, is instead asking the judge to dismiss the case on double-jeopardy grounds, and has separately asked Sullivan to find Clancy not guilty. At Tuesday's hearing, he argued both that prosecutors failed to present sufficient evidence that Clancy killed her children and that they failed to prove she was criminally responsible for the killings.
In his motion arguing that a second trial would violate Clancy's constitutional protection against double jeopardy, Reddington contends that the jury's deadlock was driven by a single holdout juror who allegedly acknowledged having doubts about the prosecution's case but refused to apply the court's instructions on reasonable doubt.
Sullivan previously declined requests during the trial to remove the juror or further question jurors about the deadlock. The judge has impounded some of the records sought by the defense but has not issued a final ruling on the new requests.
Prosecutors Have Not Said Whether They Will Retry Her
The Plymouth County District Attorney's Office has not publicly committed to a retrial.
Tuesday's hearing could provide more clarity about the prosecution's plans, although it is not certain that prosecutors will announce a final decision or that Sullivan will rule immediately on all of the defense motions. The hearing is officially focused on the status and next steps in the case following the mistrial.
If prosecutors pursue another trial and the defense motions are rejected, the case could move toward a second prosecution. If Sullivan grants the defense's request for a required finding of not guilty, or agrees that a retrial is barred by double jeopardy, the murder case could end without another jury hearing the evidence.
The judge could also take the motions under advisement, leaving the case unresolved after Tuesday's hearing.
...
What to Know About The Holdout Juror in Lindsay Clancy's Trial?
Michael Desronvil was the lone holdout during the jury's deliberations, maintaining that Clancy was criminally responsible for the deaths of Cora, Dawson and Callan. After the mistrial, Desronvil disputed the characterization that he had acknowledged having reasonable doubt, saying he "didn't have any doubts" about his conclusion and believed the evidence showed Clancy knew what she was doing.
The disagreement over Desronvil's conduct has now become part of the post-trial legal fight. Clancy's defense has asked Sullivan to conduct a limited inquiry into the juror, to examine his questionnaire from jury selection, cellphone records and other records connected to the deliberations. The defense has raised questions about whether the juror accurately disclosed information during jury selection and whether he used his cellphone during deliberations.
Desronvil's attorney has pushed back strongly against the request for an investigation, arguing that jurors must be able to reach an independent conclusion based on the evidence without fear that their personal history will later be subjected to scrutiny simply because they were in the minority. Desronvil has maintained that his position was based on the evidence presented at trial.
The juror dispute matters because the defense is connecting it to its argument that the mistrial was not necessary. Reddington has argued that the court should have investigated the disagreement more fully before declaring a mistrial. Whether the judge agrees—and whether any alleged juror misconduct could legally affect the status of the case—will be questions for the court to determine.
What Happens If Lindsay Clancy's Case Isn't Tried Again?
If prosecutors do not pursue another trial, or if the court ultimately bars a retrial, the murder prosecution would not proceed to another jury. The precise legal consequences would depend on how the case ends and what ruling the court makes on the defense's motions.
One route being pursued by the defense is a finding of not guilty. If the judge grants such a motion, the prosecution would be barred from simply retrying the same charges.
Another possibility is that prosecutors decide not to pursue another trial, or that the prosecution and defense enter negotiations over a possible plea agreement
If the case ultimately ends without a conviction, Clancy's status would also depend on the legal basis for the outcome and her existing circumstances. She has remained at Tewksbury Hospital during the proceedings and has been receiving psychiatric treatment.
Prosecution Files Gag Order Motion
On Monday Plymouth County prosecutors filed a motion for a gag order that would prohibit lawyers and their agents from making public statements that could potentially prejudice future proceedings.
“Legal trials are not like elections to be won through the use of meeting hall, the radio and the newspaper,” the filing read. “In the current digital age, trials are not to be tried through social media posts, blogs, podcasts and clips on local, national and international media outlets.”
It also argues that Clancy's lawyer, Reddington, has been actively speaking to the media and commenting on issues such as how the defendant was doing and feeling, and how witnesses testified.
As a result, the filing asks the court to "limit the extrajudicial statement made in this case to ensure the fair administration of justice.”
When Is Lindsay Clancy's Next Court Hearing?
Several motions were discussed as part of the hearing on Tuesday, including a defense motion related to further questioning of the holdout juror, Clancy’s legal team’s filed motion to dismiss the case on double jeopardy grounds and a gag order that would prohibit lawyers and their agents from making public statements that could potentially prejudice future proceedings.
With many of these motions filed just hours before the hearing, parties agreed these would be further discussed on November 2.
Update 09/29/26 11:46 a.m. ET: This story was updated with new information.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines