Judge's ruling could clear the way for Lindsay Clancy to be tried again
in the deaths of her 3 kids
[November 10, 2026]
By MICHAEL CASEY
BOSTON (AP) — A judge on Monday denied a motion to dismiss the murder
case against Lindsay Clancy, potentially clearing the way for her to be
retried next year in the deaths of her three young children.
Clancy’s defense team had asked the court to end the case based on an
unusual argument that the judge shouldn't have declared a mistrial in
September when jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. They
argued that the judge should have removed the one juror who favored
conviction, then allowed jury deliberations to continue.
But Judge William Sullivan disagreed, saying he saw no other option than
to declare a mistrial.
“Because the court concludes that there was manifest necessity for a
mistrial based on the jury's deadlock, a retrial on the murder
indictments does not violate Clancy's right not to be placed in double
jeopardy,” Sullivan wrote.
A spokesperson for Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz
declined to comment.
Clancy has never denied that she killed her three young children in
2023, but her lawyer has argued that Clancy had postpartum psychosis and
was unable to control her behavior.
Prosecutors have acknowledged that Clancy had mental health problems,
but they said she acted deliberately and understood her actions were
wrong. Prosecutors said they intend to retry Clancy, but they haven’t
settled on whether they will pursue the same charges or opt for a
reduced charge that might be more palatable for the jury.
The next hearing is Nov. 16.
In the motion to dismiss, one of Clancy’s lawyers, Martin Weinberg,
argued that the judge should have thoroughly interrogated jurors after
the foreperson sent two notes saying the one juror who favored
conviction wasn’t following the court’s instructions on reasonable
doubt.
Sullivan said that type of questioning is barred by law.
“Because the secrecy of jury deliberations is a bedrock of our judicial
system, any inquiry into the jury's deliberative process would
improperly intrude into the jury's function,” Sullivan wrote.
[to top of second column]
|
Judge William Sullivan gestures to the attorneys during Lindsay
Clancy's hearing in Plymouth Superior Court, Monday, Nov. 2, 2026,
in Plymouth, Mass. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
The judge also said he didn't believe the jury foreperson's claim
that the holdout juror — identified in court papers by the pseudonym
Juror Doe — wasn't following the law.
“In context, the notes appear to express the foreperson's belief
that Juror Doe must be refusing to follow the law because Juror Doe
would not agree with the majority's view of the case,” Sullivan
wrote. “Given that the jury unquestionably had reached an impasse,
the Court did not and does not view the foreperson's notes as
reliable evidence of Juror Doe's inability or refusal to deliberate
or follow the law.”
On Monday, Sullivan also denied prosecutors’ request for a gag order
while the case remains pending, to avoid influencing a future jury.
Clancy's attorney Kevin Reddington gave interviews during the trial,
while prosecutors generally didn't speak to reporters. Clancy’s
lawyers argued that it would amount to an unconstitutional restraint
on speech.
Sullivan also denied a defense motion to preserve certain records
related to the first trial that potentially could have been used to
further investigate the conduct of the juror who wanted to convict
Clancy.
“In the Court's view, Clancy is not entitled to any of the materials
sought in this motion,” Sullivan wrote.
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
