A Massachusetts judge denied a motion to dismiss the murder case against Lindsay Clancy on Monday, clearing the way for a possible Lindsay Clancy retrial over the deaths of her three children. Judge William Sullivan ruled that a retrial would not unconstitutionally subject Clancy to double jeopardy, according to BBC World.
Sullivan had declared a mistrial on 4 September after jurors could not reach a unanimous verdict, according to BBC World. The lone holdout juror voted to convict on first-degree murder, while the other 11 intended to acquit by reason of insanity. Sullivan cited manifest necessity for the mistrial based on the deadlock.
Clancy’s lawyers argued that the judge should have removed the one juror who favoured conviction and let deliberations continue, according to PBS NewsHour headlines. Sullivan denied the defence request to see the holdout juror’s records and to question the juror under oath. He said such questioning would be impermissibly coercive, according to BBC World.
Sullivan also denied a request from prosecutors for a gag order while the case is pending, according to PBS NewsHour headlines.
Prosecutors allege that on 24 January 2023, Clancy intentionally strangled her children Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, eight months old, at their home in Duxbury, Massachusetts. Clancy has not denied killing her children. Her defence argues she had severe postpartum psychosis, while prosecutors say the killings were deliberate and that she understood they were wrong.
In Massachusetts and in all US criminal murder trials, juries must reach a unanimous decision to convict or acquit.
Sullivan has scheduled a 16 November hearing to discuss scheduling a second trial. He previously suggested the trial could begin in March, according to BBC World. Prosecutors must decide whether to pursue the same charges or a reduced charge in a retrial, and they have not yet settled on either option.
A spokesperson for Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz declined to comment, according to PBS NewsHour headlines. Neither Clancy’s lawyers nor the defence have publicly responded to the ruling in the sources. The BBC said it had contacted them for comment. Most of the key details about the ruling come from BBC World, and the court documents were obtained by the BBC rather than quoted publicly by other outlets, so the account rests largely on that one report.
Sources
This article was written with AI assistance from the published reporting listed above. It is part of the World Brief daily news podcast.