Lindsay Clancy was back in Plymouth Superior Court Tuesday morning for a hearing following the mistrial in her tragic and polarizing triple murder case. There are several major issues surrounding the failed trial and what will happen next still. No decisions were made today from the bench.
There was some confusion Monday over reports that the hearing had been “adjourned.” According to holdout juror Michael Desronvil’s attorney, Ed Paltzik, the defense and Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office had agreed to postpone one specific motion: Kevin Reddington’s request for an investigation into Desronvil. Reddington disputed the account that it had been “adjourned,” and used the synonym that the motion was “continued.”
In two newly filed motions from Tuesday, prosecutors are asking Judge William Sullivan to put tighter limits on what attorneys and others involved in the Lindsay Clancy case can say publicly as the case moves toward a possible retrial. The DA’s office argues that the intense media coverage, including public discussion of the trial and jurors, could make it harder to find an impartial jury next time.
The prosecution also submitted a proposed order spelling out those restrictions. It would limit what both sides could say about jurors, nonpublic evidence and other potentially prejudicial information, while still allowing basic information about charges, public court filings and scheduling to be discussed. Importantly, the order is only a proposal: Sullivan has not signed or approved it. Sullivan indicated that these issues will be argued on Nov. 2.
The hearing comes less than a month after Sullivan declared a mistrial when jurors said they could not reach a unanimous verdict. Multiple jurors later said the panel had been split 11-1, with Desronvil the lone juror unwilling to find Clancy not criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children. Desronvil has since publicly defended his decision.
Among the issues still before Sullivan is Reddington’s renewed request for a required finding of not guilty, essentially asking the judge to find that prosecutors did not present enough evidence to legally support a conviction. The court had previously denied a similar request during the trial.
Clancy’s defense is also pursuing a separate double-jeopardy argument, claiming Sullivan should not have declared a mistrial without first investigating the foreperson’s concerns about the holdout juror. The defense argues other options were available and that Clancy therefore should not be put through a second trial.
Looming over Tuesday’s hearing was the biggest question of all: Will Lindsay Clancy be tried again? Clancy’s new attorney, Marty Weinberg, was also at the defense table alongside Reddington.
Reddington argued right off the bat that the evidence presented at trial was not enough to support the charges against Clancy, repeatedly criticizing what he described as major gaps in the investigation. He questioned the physical evidence from the night of the killings, including the lack of blood on Clancy’s black socks when her shoes were removed, the absence of blood smears leading to the bedroom window and whether investigators ever tested a cup on the nightstand that was suggested to have contained crushed medication. “This entire case is based on speculation,” Reddington argued. He also renewed his criticism of the investigation itself, telling the court that when the government brings charges, it must have reliable evidence supporting every element of the offense.
Reddington also focused heavily on Clancy’s mental state. He noted that the Commonwealth’s rebuttal witnesses – Drs. Mack, Heilbrun and Saathoff- were not qualified specifically as experts in postpartum psychosis, while pointing to testimony from experts including Dr. Phillip Resnick that a person experiencing psychosis can still carry out normal, everyday tasks. Reddington argued that all five doctors who testified agreed Clancy was suffering from a serious mental disease or defect, and accused prosecutors of shifting their position during the case on both her mental illness and whether her suicide attempt was genuine.
Prosecutor Jennifer Buckingham pushed back, calling the evidence that Clancy killed her children “voluminous.” She pointed to evidence that Clancy was alone with the children, sent Patrick Clancy out of the house, communicated with him while he was gone and later said she was “glad her children are safe now.” On criminal responsibility, Buckingham argued that having a mental illness does not automatically mean someone is legally not responsible for their actions. The key question, she said, includes whether Clancy was able to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct. Buckingham also addressed motive, arguing that Clancy’s own words supported the Commonwealth’s theory that she believed she would never again be the person she had been before her mental-health struggles and ultimately decided she did not want to live and wanted to take her children with her because she believed no one else could care for them as she could.
The hearing then turned to sealed jury material that Clancy’s defense says it needs for its planned double-jeopardy argument. Attorney Marty Weinberg asked for access to the Sept. 3 jury note and relevant sidebar transcripts, arguing they could shed light on whether there was truly a “manifest necessity” to declare a mistrial or whether another option (including removing a juror and allowing deliberations to continue) was available. Weinberg said the material is necessary to determine whether retrying Clancy would violate her federal and state constitutional protections against double jeopardy.
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague opposed releasing the material, arguing that protecting the secrecy and integrity of jury deliberations serves a greater interest. She questioned whether future jurors would feel comfortable sending notes to a judge during deliberations if they believed those communications could later become public, particularly in a high-profile case involving a holdout juror. Sullivan did not immediately decide the issue and said the matter would be preserved for further consideration.
An attorney representing the Boston Globe and WBZ also argued for access to certain sidebar discussions, clarifying that the media was not seeking every sidebar from the trial. He raised a broader public-access question: at what point does handling substantive matters privately at sidebar interfere with the right to a public trial? During that discussion, Reddington stood and said he was “so tired of people acting like [he] has attacked this juror,” saying he had filed only one motion concerning the juror and had responded publicly to critics, including Rep. Nancy Mace. Sullivan quickly redirected him, noting that the court was addressing the Globe’s motion.
Several major issues will now carry over to Nov. 2, including arguments surrounding “Juror Doe,” the defense motion to dismiss and the Commonwealth’s newly filed request to restrict out-of-court statements about the case. Sullivan also wants the parties prepared to discuss a new trial date. The judge expressed frustration that a date had not yet been selected, saying he did not want the case “kicked down the road.”
Reddington, however, told the court that he could not begin another trial before June.
The post ‘Where Is the Evidence?’ Lindsay Clancy’s Attorney Takes Aim at Prosecution’s Case appeared first on LAmag.
