Lindsay Clancy due in court as prosecutors consider retrial in children’s deaths

Plymouth, United States. Lindsay Clancy is due back in court on Tuesday as prosecutors consider whether to retry her on murder charges in the deaths of her three young children. Her lawyers are seeking to have the case dismissed.

Mistrial and possible retrial

Judge William Sullivan scheduled the hearing after declaring a mistrial on September 4. One juror prevented the 12-member jury from reaching a unanimous verdict on whether to convict Clancy or find her not guilty by reason of insanity.

Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz’s office has not said in the weeks since whether it will retry Clancy on first-degree murder charges, which carry a life sentence. Sullivan has said he would ideally like any retrial to take place later this year.

Prosecutors could also seek a plea deal or retry Clancy on lesser second-degree murder charges. On those charges, she could waive a jury trial and have the case heard by a judge.

Deaths and insanity defense

Clancy, 36, admits strangling Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and 8-month-old Callan with exercise bands on January 24, 2023, in the basement of their home in Duxbury, a Boston suburb. She then cut herself with a knife and jumped from a second-story window in an attempt to end her life, leaving her paralyzed.

At her first trial, defense lawyer Kevin Reddington argued that Clancy was experiencing postpartum psychosis and did not understand that what she was doing was wrong. Several jurors have said in televised interviews that, apart from the holdout, they were prepared to find her not guilty by reason of insanity, known in Massachusetts as lack of criminal responsibility.

Such a verdict would result in Clancy being committed to a state psychiatric hospital for evaluation, with her commitment subject to regular court review.

Challenge to a second trial

Clancy’s lawyers have filed motions asking Sullivan to declare her not guilty and bar a retrial. They argue that the mistrial was unnecessary and that another trial would violate her protection against being tried twice for the same crime, known as double jeopardy.

They say jurors’ notes to the judge showed that the holdout refused to follow the court’s instructions on determining whether prosecutors had proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The juror should have been dismissed, they argue, rather than allowing the case to be retried.