Prosecutors announced in court on Nov. 2 that they intend to retry Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother who killed her three young children.
Clancy, 36, was charged with murder for killing her children Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, on Jan. 24, 2023, by strangling them with exercise bands in the basement of their Duxbury home. Clancy's attorney Kevin Reddington argued she can't be held criminally responsible, Massachusetts' version of the insanity defense, because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time of the killings. Clancy's triple murder trial ended with a hung jury in early September,leaving her fate in limbo.
Plymouth County Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague said prosecutors want to retry Clancy
but are waiting to decide what charges she will face until Judge William Sullivan makes a decision on three motions, including a defense motion to dismiss the murder charges.
"Your honor, this would be a retrial. As to what that looks like will depend," Sprague said. "We're not at that point yet."
Reddington argued prosecutors don't need to know the outcome of the motions to determine what charges they will retry Clancy on. "Why do we not know if the next trial will be murder in the first degree, or a lesser charge or no charge?" he asked.
Reddington said he wants Sullivan, who is approaching mandatory retirement in June, to preside over the trial in the spring. Sullivan said requested the parties appear on Nov. 16 for another hearing. If Sullivan dismisses the defense's motion to dismiss at that hearing, the parties will then select a trial date, which Sullivan said he is hoping to schedule in March.
Judge to weigh motion to dismiss
The defense team pushed to have the charges against Clancy dismissed altogether and launch an investigation into the holdout juror. Defense attorney Martin Weinberg argued on Nov. 2 that retrying Clancy would violate constitutional protections against double jeopardy because Sullivan should have questioned the jury more thoroughly after receiving notes indicating one juror was refusing to follow the court's instruction on reasonable doubt, an allegation the holdout juror has denied.
Sullivan interjected, noting he did question the jurors individually before declaring a mistrial on Sept. 4. Weinberg said the question Sullivan asked was “simply constitutionally insufficient to probe what was going on in that jury room."
Prosecutors opposed the defense's motion, saying the mistrial was properly declared after the jury repeatedly reported it was deadlocked. Sprague argued that Sullivan could not have questioned the jurors further without probing the substance of deliberations, which is prohibited, and even if he could have done so, the appropriate response wouldn’t be dismissing the charges.
"It’s not for the trial judge to choose sides in a deadlocked jury and decide," she said.
Sullivan said he would take the matter under advisement.
Defense argues for holdout juror probe
Reddington also requested the holdout juror's phone, phone records and confidential questionnaire, among other records. Reddington asked the court to question the juror about the truthfulness of a questionnaire and his answers during jury selection, a "sworn assurance" from Sept. 3, and the use of a cell phone or receipt of outside information during deliberations.
In a fiery exchange on Nov. 2, Reddington said he has evidence the holdout juror was using his cellphone and researching altruistic filicide during deliberations. Reddington said the juror was also dishonest about his criminal history on his questionnaire.
Heather O'Connor, an attorney for the holdout juror, said that the mistrial decision had to be made based on what was known at the time and that these allegations came to light after the jury was dismissed. "And to be clear Juror Doe does not concede any of those allegations," O'Connor said.
Sullivan said he would take the matter under advisement.
Prosecutors push for gag order
Prosecutors also asked the court to prohibit defense attorneys, as well as themselves, from speaking to the media in a way that would "have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the criminal proceedings." Sprague argued Reddington has already made many statements that were inappropriate and "calculated to affect the public's perception of the case," including asking for a presidential pardon and saying the other jurors were "robbed" by the holdout.
A defense attorney opposed that motion, arguing that such an order would constitute "prior restraint" of speech that infringes upon both Reddington's and Clancy's First Amendment rights. They said that no trial date had been set and the impact of these alleged comments on a potential future jury is "merely speculative."
Sullivan said he would also take this matter under advisement.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Prosecutors intend to retry Lindsay Clancy for killing her 3 children
