US mother Lindsay Clancy returned to court Tuesday for the first hearing since her murder trial ended in a mistrial, as her lawyers asked a Massachusetts judge to enter a finding of not guilty and sought to block any retrial.
Get breaking news anytime, anywhere. Download the TOI app now!
Clancy, 36, faces three first-degree murder charges over the deaths of her children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, eight months, at the family’s home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in January 2023. Her first trial ended on September 4 after the 12-member jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict.
Prosecutors said the evidence at trial showed that Clancy strangled the children with exercise bands in the basement of the family’s Duxbury home on January 24, 2023. They said she then cut herself with a knife and jumped from a second-storey window in an apparent suicide attempt, leaving her paralysed.
Defence lawyer Kevin Reddington argued that there was a “total and complete lack of evidence” from which a rational juror could find Clancy guilty. He also argued that prosecutors had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she was criminally responsible at the time of the deaths.
The Reddington says Clancy was experiencing postpartum psychosis and should be found not guilty by reason of insanity, described under Massachusetts law as a lack of criminal responsibility. Prosecutors opposed the request, maintaining that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the charges.
The jury was reported to have been split 11–1 in favour of finding Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, but it could not reach the unanimous verdict required under Massachusetts law. The jury had considered first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter and lack of criminal responsibility during its deliberations.
Prosecutors have not said whether they will seek a second trial. Judge William Sullivan made no ruling Tuesday on the defence request for a not-guilty finding or on other defence motions.
Sullivan scheduled another hearing for November 2 to address outstanding motions, including a bid to dismiss the murder charges and a request for a limited inquiry into the lone holdout juror. He also told the parties to be prepared to discuss a possible retrial date.
The defence has argued that the mistrial should not have been declared and that another trial would violate Clancy’s protection against double jeopardy. It has also sought access to material relating to the holdout juror, Michael Desronvil, over allegations concerning cellphone use during deliberations and information provided during jury selection. Those allegations have not been proven.
