Lindsay Clancy’s defense lawyer has advanced a new reasonable-doubt argument after jurors failed to reach a verdict in her Massachusetts murder trial. Kevin Reddington questioned whether prosecutors had sufficiently proved that Clancy killed her three children. The argument differs from the defense’s earlier focus on postpartum psychosis and a lack of criminal responsibility. A judge is expected to hear additional motions before any retrial is scheduled.

The case concerns the deaths of Clancy’s three children at the family’s home in Duxbury in January 2023. Clancy survived a suicide attempt after the incident but was left paralyzed. Prosecutors oppose the defense request for a not-guilty finding, while the next major hearing is scheduled for Nov. 2.

Defense shifts toward a sufficiency-of-evidence challenge

During a hearing on a Rule 25(b)(2) motion, Kevin Reddington asked Judge William Sullivan to enter a not-guilty finding after the jury deadlocked. He argued that the prosecution had not presented sufficient evidence that Lindsay Clancy carried out the killings alleged in the indictments.

“Where’s the evidence that she did this?”

The argument was notable because the defense had previously centered on the claim that Clancy was not criminally responsible because of postpartum psychosis. Legal analyst Neama Rahmani said the latest position could represent a broader or changed strategy, although it could also be an effort to challenge the prosecution from multiple directions.

Mistrial follows a sharply divided jury

Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on Sept. 4 after jurors were unable to agree following approximately a week of deliberations. Several jurors later described an 11-1 split, with 11 jurors supporting a not-guilty verdict based on mental illness or defect and one juror favoring a murder conviction.

The defense had argued that Clancy strangled her children with exercise bands while experiencing postpartum psychosis. The prosecution rejected the request for a court-ordered acquittal and characterized the claim that there was no evidence linking Clancy to the deaths as an untenable reading of the case.

Physical evidence and police work come under scrutiny

At the hearing, Kevin Reddington raised questions about the blood evidence, DNA, the timing of events and the circumstances of Clancy’s suicide attempt. He also criticized aspects of the police investigation after Clancy was found injured in the backyard of the Duxbury home.

The defense indicated that the investigation and search of the home may not have established every element required for conviction. Retired Massachusetts judge Carol Erskine described the argument as a legally nuanced challenge to evidentiary sufficiency and investigative procedures. She said such motions are routine but rarely succeed.

Pending motions could shape the next stage

Clancy has pending motions seeking dismissal on double-jeopardy grounds and an inquiry into the juror who voted for conviction. The defense also challenged the investigation through arguments associated with a requested Bowden instruction, which concerns alleged flaws in the police work.

The prosecution and defense have told the court they need additional time. The court must decide the pending motions before the parties can determine whether the case will proceed to another trial, be resolved through another legal ruling or take a different course.

A retrial date remains unresolved

Clancy is scheduled to return to court on Nov. 2 for another motion hearing. No new trial date has been set. Kevin Reddington said he would not be available to begin a retrial until June 2027, placing a potential trial months after the upcoming hearing.

The defense’s revised emphasis on reasonable doubt does not itself establish that another person was responsible. However, legal observers said the argument could signal that the defense may supplement or reconsider its earlier mental-illness strategy if the case proceeds to a retrial.

Summary

The defense has moved beyond its original focus on postpartum psychosis by directly contesting whether the prosecution’s evidence was legally sufficient. The argument follows a mistrial caused by a sharply divided jury and leaves several procedural issues unresolved. The Nov. 2 hearing is expected to clarify whether the case can proceed and how the defense will approach any future trial.

Frequently Asked Questions

What caused the mistrial?

Jurors could not reach a unanimous verdict after approximately a week of deliberations, leading Judge William Sullivan to declare a mistrial on Sept. 4.

What is the defense arguing now?

The defense is arguing that prosecutors did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that Lindsay Clancy committed the killings charged in the indictments.

When will the case return to court?

Clancy is scheduled for another motion hearing on Nov. 2. A retrial date has not been set, and the defense has said it is not available to begin one until June 2027.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

Lindsay Clancy‘s defense is asking a Massachusetts judge to investigate the lone juror who prevented a not criminally responsible verdict in her murder trial. Attorney Kevin Reddington is seeking juror questionnaires, phone records, surveillance footage and other records related to the panel’s deliberations. The request follows an 11-1 deadlock that led to a mistrial in September. Prosecutors have not announced whether they will seek a retrial.

Defense requests a focused juror inquiry

The defense of Lindsay Clancy is asking the court to conduct a limited inquiry into the juror identified in the filing as Juror Doe. The juror, publicly identified elsewhere as Michael P. Desronvil, was the only member of the panel who did not support a verdict finding Clancy not criminally responsible because of mental illness or defect.

In a motion filed after the mistrial, Kevin Reddington argued that the court should preserve evidence and examine whether the juror’s questionnaire and voir dire answers were truthful. The proposed inquiry would also address statements the juror made to the court on Sept. 3 and whether he used a phone or received outside information during deliberations.

Records sought from the court and prosecutors

The defense is seeking records involving all 12 jurors and six alternates, rather than limiting its request to the holdout. Requested materials include juror questionnaires, supplemental filings, courthouse hallway surveillance video outside the deliberation room and cellphone sign-in sheets.

The motion also seeks the holdout juror’s probation records and any record from the statewide domestic violence registry. In addition, the defense wants prosecutors to disclose whether they had contact with the juror as a defendant, complainant or subject in any matter dating back to January 2021. The requests are intended to help determine whether information relevant to jury service was omitted or whether undisclosed circumstances affected the deliberations.

Questions about phone use and outside information

The defense wants the juror’s phone records for the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on each day of deliberations. It is also asking the judge to order an independent examination of phone use during that period.

The filing proposes that the court question the holdout about whether a phone was used during deliberations and whether outside information played any role. It also says the court may hear from Juror No. 10, but only about what that juror observed regarding the alleged phone use. The motion does not establish that improper phone use occurred, and the requested inquiry remains subject to the judge’s decision.

The mistrial and competing mental-state arguments

The trial ended in a mistrial on Sept. 4 after the jury reported an 11-1 split. The majority favored finding Lindsay Clancy not criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children, while the lone holdout continued to oppose that outcome.

Clancy faced three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months. The children were killed at the family’s home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in January 2023. The defense argued that Clancy was experiencing postpartum psychosis and had repeatedly sought help. Prosecutors argued that she acted deliberately and understood that strangling the children with exercise bands was wrong.

Possible next steps in the case

The court must first decide whether to preserve the requested records and allow the proposed inquiry. Separately, the defense has asked the judge to overrule the holdout and declare Clancy not guilty, a procedural request that legal experts have described as rarely successful.

Prosecutors have not formally said whether they will seek a new trial. The case could therefore proceed toward a retrial, a negotiated resolution or further litigation over the defense’s requests. Any future proceeding would continue to center on whether Clancy’s mental condition prevented her from understanding the nature or wrongfulness of the killings.

Summary

The defense is pursuing a records-based inquiry into the juror whose position produced a mistrial in Lindsay Clancy‘s case. The requested investigation focuses on possible inaccuracies in jury materials, undisclosed background information and phone use during deliberations. The court has yet to rule on the requests, while prosecutors have not decided publicly whether to retry the case.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did the Lindsay Clancy trial end in a mistrial?

The jury deadlocked 11-1 after most jurors favored finding Clancy not criminally responsible because of mental illness or defect and one juror opposed that verdict.

What records does the defense want?

The defense is seeking juror questionnaires, supplemental filings, surveillance video, cellphone sign-in sheets, phone records, background-related records and information about any prosecutorial contact with the holdout juror.

Will Lindsay Clancy face a new trial?

That has not been decided. Prosecutors have not officially announced whether they will seek a retrial, and the defense is separately challenging the holdout’s position and requesting a not-guilty ruling.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

Judge Judy Sheindlin has warned of a potential “danger” if prosecutors decide not to retry Lindsay Clancy after her Massachusetts murder trial ended in a mistrial. Clancy is accused of killing her three young children in January 2023, and her defense does not dispute that she strangled them with exercise bands. The defense argues that she was not criminally responsible because of mental illness or a mental defect. A jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict after seven days of deliberations, with later reports indicating that 11 jurors favored a finding that Clancy was not criminally responsible and one favored conviction.

Sheindlin urges consideration of a second trial

Sheindlin, an 83-year-old judge and television personality, discussed the case on Thursday after being questioned about whether Clancy should face another trial. Her comments came after the mistrial was declared in Massachusetts earlier in September. Sheindlin said prosecutors could face a “danger” if they chose not to pursue the case again.

“I think there’s a danger in that, in not retrying,” Sheindlin said.

When asked whether Clancy should have been found guilty, Sheindlin distinguished between the act itself and the legal question of responsibility.

“There’s no question, my dear, that she killed her children. The only question is, is there an excuse for it?” Sheindlin said.

The case centers on criminal responsibility

The prosecution and defense agree on the central physical allegation: Clancy, a 36-year-old former delivery room nurse, strangled her three children with exercise bands in January 2023. The disputed issue is whether a mental illness or defect made her legally not responsible for the killings.

That distinction shaped the trial and the jury’s deliberations. Sheindlin was also asked about Representative Nancy Mace calling for Clancy to be publicly executed. Sheindlin rejected that proposal as “ridiculous,” keeping her comments focused on the legal and factual questions surrounding the case.

The jury’s deadlock produced a mistrial

Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on September 4 after jurors deliberated for seven days without reaching the unanimous verdict required to resolve the charges. The jury’s inability to agree ended the trial without a final determination of Clancy’s criminal responsibility.

Several jurors later said the vote was reportedly 11 to 1 in favor of finding Clancy not guilty by reason of a lack of criminal responsibility. One juror favored conviction. The split has intensified public discussion of postpartum mental health and the legal standards used to evaluate criminal responsibility.

Defense lawyers signal challenges to another trial

Immediately after the mistrial, Clancy’s longtime defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, indicated that he would oppose another prosecution attempt. The defense plans to argue that circumstances surrounding the mistrial should prevent the state from putting Clancy on trial again.

Reddington later said that if prosecutors reduced the top charge to second-degree murder, he would choose a bench trial, in which a judge rather than a jury decides the case. He said the defense would pursue that option with the hope that Clancy could receive probation. The possibility of a plea agreement remains part of the broader discussion over how the case might proceed.

Clancy remains hospitalized while the case continues

Clancy remains in custody at Tewksbury Hospital and is scheduled to return to court on September 29. Prosecutors must decide whether to seek another trial, respond to the defense’s anticipated legal arguments, or pursue a negotiated resolution.

The next steps will depend on court rulings and the parties’ positions regarding the mistrial, the charges and the disputed mental-health defense. Until the case is resolved, Clancy has not received a final verdict on criminal responsibility for the deaths of her children.

Summary

The mistrial leaves prosecutors weighing a second trial against other possible resolutions, while Clancy’s defense prepares to challenge any renewed prosecution. The central issue remains whether mental illness or a mental defect made her legally not criminally responsible. Clancy’s next court appearance is scheduled for September 29.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did Lindsay Clancy’s trial end in a mistrial?

The jury deliberated for seven days but could not reach the unanimous verdict required to decide the case.

What is the main legal issue in the case?

The defense acknowledges the killings but argues that mental illness or a mental defect made Clancy not criminally responsible.

What could happen next?

Prosecutors could seek another trial, while the defense may challenge that effort or consider a bench trial if the top charge is reduced.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

The future of Lindsay Clancy’s murder case remains uncertain after a Massachusetts judge declared a mistrial when jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict. A veteran defense attorney said the deadlock could make the case an unusual candidate for plea negotiations, despite the local prosecutor’s reputation for rarely making such agreements. The prosecution has not decided whether to retry Clancy, who faces three first-degree murder charges in the deaths of her children. A status hearing is scheduled for Sept. 29.

Mistrial leaves the case unresolved

Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on Sept. 4 in Plymouth Superior Court after the jury could not agree on a verdict. Clancy, 36, was charged with three counts of first-degree murder after her children, Cora, Dawson and Callan, all under age 6, were found strangled at the family’s home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in January 2023.

The reported jury division was 11-1, although the court did not issue a verdict because unanimity was required. A mistrial caused by a deadlocked jury ordinarily allows prosecutors to seek another trial, meaning the charges remain unresolved and Clancy has not been convicted.

Why a plea agreement is being considered

Boston defense attorney Peter Elikann, who has worked against the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office, said the office is known for pursuing trials rather than frequently negotiating pleas. He said the unusual result in Clancy’s case could create an exception because securing agreement from 12 jurors on first-degree murder may be difficult at a retrial.

“It would make sense that as a win-win situation that the DA’s office puts their head together with the defense counsel and they try to work out some sort of compromise that they can both live with.”

Elikann said a different jury could reach a different conclusion, but argued that the first trial’s division may signal a significant challenge for prosecutors. Any agreement would have to address the interests of the prosecution, the defense and the public while resolving the criminal charges through a negotiated outcome.

The prosecution’s position remains uncertain

Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not decided whether to retry Clancy. After the mistrial, Cruz said no immediate decision would be made and that he would meet with his team before addressing the case in an official court proceeding.

Retired Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Jack Lu said a plea agreement could serve the public interest, but he did not expect prosecutors to readily abandon their original position. He said the office could continue seeking a first-degree murder conviction, while acknowledging that reduced charges remained possible.

“I predict that the prosecutor’s office will approach this the same way, at least as the charges are concerned, as they did for trial number one, seeking a conviction of first-degree murder.”

Defense seeks a finding based on criminal responsibility

Clancy’s attorney, Kevin J. Reddington, has asked the court to enter findings of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility on each charge. He wants the request heard at the Sept. 29 hearing. The filing argues that 11 jurors applied the reasonable doubt standard and concluded prosecutors had not proved that Clancy was criminally responsible.

Reddington also said he hoped the two sides could reach an agreement. He described Cruz as a hard-charging prosecutor but said he hoped the evidence presented at trial would lead the district attorney to reconsider the case’s future. A hung jury is not a verdict, and the defense filing acknowledged that a mistrial ordinarily permits a retrial.

The next court date could clarify the path forward

Clancy is scheduled to return to court on Sept. 29 for a status hearing. The proceeding could provide more information about whether prosecutors will seek a second trial, consider reduced charges or respond to the defense request concerning criminal responsibility.

Juror Nick Dargie said the holdout juror did not explain which testimony or evidence supported his position. Dargie said jurors repeatedly asked for that explanation and ultimately sent a note to the court. The account offers context for the reported 11-1 split but does not determine what a future jury would decide.

Summary

The mistrial leaves prosecutors with several options, including a retrial, reduced charges or negotiations with the defense. The reported jury split has intensified questions about whether a unanimous first-degree murder conviction could be secured. The Sept. 29 status hearing is expected to provide the next formal indication of how the case will proceed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why was a mistrial declared?

The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on the charges against Clancy, so Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial.

Can prosecutors retry Lindsay Clancy?

A deadlocked jury ordinarily permits a retrial, but the prosecution has not announced whether it will seek one.

What is the defense asking the court to do?

The defense has asked for findings of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility on each charge, with the request scheduled for consideration at a Sept. 29 hearing.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

The Lindsay Clancy murder trial in Massachusetts ended in a mistrial after jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict. Eleven jurors favored finding Clancy not criminally responsible, while one juror supported criminal responsibility. The case concerns the deaths of Clancy’s three young children in January 2023 and her defense that postpartum psychosis affected her legal responsibility. Her attorneys have filed a motion seeking a not guilty finding that would prevent a retrial.

Jury deadlock ends the Massachusetts trial

The trial ended in a mistrial last week after jurors could not agree on a unanimous verdict. Clancy was accused of strangling her three children in January 2023 after her husband, Patrick, left the family home to collect medication and takeout.

When Patrick returned, he found Clancy injured outside the home after an apparent suicide attempt. The children were unconscious in the basement. Two died that night, while the third was taken by air to a Boston hospital and died several days later.

The jury’s disagreement concerned whether Clancy was criminally responsible, not whether she caused the children’s deaths. Her defense did not dispute that she killed them, but argued that severe mental illness prevented criminal responsibility.

Defense relies on postpartum psychosis claim

Clancy’s attorneys argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis when the killings occurred. They said the condition affected her ability to understand or control her conduct and that she should be found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, Massachusetts’ version of an insanity defense.

Prosecutors argued that Clancy remained criminally responsible despite evidence of mental illness. Jurors therefore had to assess evidence about her mental state, the legal standard and the circumstances surrounding the children’s deaths.

Juror Paula, 65, said the majority believed Clancy needed help and that the healthcare system had failed her and her family. She said the case also showed the need for stronger support and education about postpartum mental health conditions.

“We all tried to help each other. It was hard to separate the children from what our task was, and it was very emotional,” Paula said.

Juror describes emotional deliberations

Paula said jurors received 297 pieces of evidence, including Patrick’s emotional 911 call. She said some jurors found the call difficult to hear while reviewing the case.

According to Paula, an initial poll showed that eight jurors favored a finding of no criminal responsibility, two supported a guilty verdict and two were undecided. She said the panel did not begin deliberations with an 11-to-1 split.

The majority ultimately concluded that Clancy was not criminally responsible. Paula said jurors struggled to reconcile that view with the holdout juror, who continued to favor criminal responsibility. She said the evidence made it difficult to separate the tragedy from the legal question before the panel.

Dispute centers on reasonable doubt

The foreperson told the judge that the jury could not reach a verdict and alleged that the holdout was refusing to apply the law concerning reasonable doubt. Judge William Sullivan questioned jurors individually about whether they could follow the instructions, and they reportedly said they could.

Paula said the majority believed the holdout had acknowledged doubts about the case at various points. In her view, those doubts should have prevented convictions for first-degree murder, second-degree murder or manslaughter under the court’s instructions.

“Everybody says you’re not supposed to feel like you failed, but you have a task to come out unanimous. And we tried everything we could to get to that end. And I feel like we let down Lindsay,” Paula said.

Paula said deliberations might have restarted with an alternate juror if the holdout had provided evidence supporting his reasoning. Juror Kellie Farina also discussed the disagreement and said the holdout had difficulty moving beyond the fact that Clancy killed her children.

Defense seeks to block a retrial

On Thursday, Clancy’s defense filed a motion arguing that prosecutors failed to meet their burden of proof. The filing asks the judge to enter a required finding of not guilty, which the defense says would prevent the state from retrying the case.

The motion follows the mistrial and accounts of the jury’s division. Its outcome will determine whether the case moves toward another trial or ends with a court-ordered acquittal. The defense continues to rely on postpartum psychosis, while prosecutors maintain that Clancy should be held accountable under Massachusetts law.

Summary

The mistrial leaves the Lindsay Clancy case unresolved. Most jurors accepted the defense position on criminal responsibility, but one juror’s contrary view prevented a unanimous verdict. The judge must consider the defense motion for a required finding of not guilty, while further proceedings depend on the court’s ruling.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did the Lindsay Clancy trial end in a mistrial?

The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. Eleven jurors favored finding Clancy not criminally responsible, while one favored criminal responsibility.

What was Clancy’s defense?

Her attorneys argued that postpartum psychosis and severe mental illness left her not criminally responsible for killing her three children.

What motion did the defense file?

The defense asked the judge to enter a required finding of not guilty, arguing that prosecutors failed to meet their burden. It says that ruling would prevent a retrial.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

Lindsay Clancy’s attorney has appealed to President Donald Trump for a pardon after a mistrial in the Massachusetts case involving the deaths of her three children. Legal experts said the request is unlikely to succeed because the president generally cannot pardon state crimes, while questioning whether the strategy could damage the defense’s credibility. The case may now proceed toward a retrial, plea discussions or both. Prosecutors would also face pressure to strengthen their expert testimony if they bring the charges again.

Pardon request faces legal limits

Kevin Reddington, who represents Lindsay Clancy, made the appeal during a television interview on Tuesday, asking Donald Trump to consider a pardon for his client. Clancy, a 36-year-old former nurse, is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her children, 5-year-old Cora Clancy, 3-year-old Dawson Clancy and 8-month-old Callan Clancy.

The children died at the family’s home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in January 2023. Afterward, Clancy attempted to take her own life and suffered injuries that left her paralyzed. Mark Bederow, a New York criminal defense attorney who has followed the proceedings, said the federal pardon power does not provide a clear legal route for ending a Massachusetts state prosecution.

“There isn’t going to be a pardon for the simple reason there is no mechanism by law which would allow said pardon,” Mark Bederow said.

Defense strategy and political pressure

Reddington said Clancy’s life was damaged after she received treatment for postpartum depression from a doctor he characterized as inexperienced. He also acknowledged in a separate interview that Trump had no legal grounds to pardon a state defendant, but suggested the president’s public influence could affect the case indirectly.

Reddington said a presidential approach to Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz might create pressure, even though Cruz’s office would retain authority over the Massachusetts prosecution. Josh Ritter, a Los Angeles attorney, said the public appeal could be intended to strengthen the defense’s position in possible plea negotiations by drawing political attention to the case.

“I think he knows that this will publicly agitate this entire case and perhaps be beneficial to him in plea negotiations with the district attorney,” Josh Ritter said.

Mistrial leaves several paths open

Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on Friday after jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict following a full week of deliberations. The trial focused on whether Clancy was criminally responsible when she strangled each child with exercise bands, as prosecutors alleged, or whether postpartum psychosis prevented her from understanding or controlling her actions, as the defense argued.

The deadlocked jury does not resolve the charges. Prosecutors could seek a new trial, while the defense could continue exploring a negotiated resolution with Cruz’s office. Reddington said he was open to discussing a potential deal after the mistrial, leaving the case at a procedural crossroads.

Prosecution experts could shape a retrial

Bederow said a retrial would likely depend heavily on the prosecution’s medical and psychological evidence. He argued that prosecutors would need experts with appropriate expertise who could directly address the defense expert’s testimony and explain why its conclusions should not be accepted.

That challenge is especially significant because Massachusetts law places the burden of proving criminal responsibility on the prosecution. Bederow said prosecutors would have difficulty prevailing unless they thoroughly undermined the defense account of postpartum psychosis. The location and timing of any retrial remain undecided, but the expert evidence would again be central to the case.

Attorney-client closeness draws scrutiny

Donna Rotunno, a Chicago criminal defense attorney, said Reddington’s personal investment in Clancy was understandable but could become a professional concern if it affected his judgment. Reddington has described viewing his client much like a daughter and has been praised by some legal analysts for his work during the trial.

Bederow similarly questioned the value of making a request that many observers consider legally unavailable. He said the public discussion had shifted attention away from the legal issues and toward the unusual appeal for presidential intervention. Reddington did not immediately respond to requests for further comment.

Summary

The pardon appeal has added a political dimension to a case that remains controlled by Massachusetts prosecutors and courts. Its practical effect is uncertain, but legal analysts said it could create credibility concerns for the defense. If prosecutors pursue a retrial, the quality and clarity of their expert testimony will be central to overcoming the defense’s postpartum psychosis argument.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can the president pardon Clancy in this case?

Legal experts said the president generally lacks authority to pardon crimes prosecuted under state law, including the Massachusetts charges facing Clancy.

Why was a mistrial declared?

Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial after jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict following a full week of deliberations.

What could happen next?

Prosecutors could seek a retrial, while Clancy’s defense could pursue plea discussions with the office of District Attorney Tim Cruz.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington said he is willing to consider a plea agreement for Lindsay Clancy after her Massachusetts murder trial ended in a mistrial. The jury reportedly split 11-1 before Judge William Sullivan declared it could not reach a unanimous verdict. Clancy faces three first-degree murder charges in the deaths of her young children. A status hearing is scheduled for Sept. 29, while prosecutors have not announced whether they will seek a retrial.

Reddington said he hopes Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz will reconsider the case after hearing the evidence presented by both sides. His comments represent a shift from earlier statements that prosecutors were not interested in negotiating a plea.

Defense signals openness to negotiations

Kevin Reddington, who represents Lindsay Clancy, said Tuesday that he would listen if Tim Cruz became willing to discuss a resolution. Speaking about the possibility of a plea agreement, Reddington said he hoped the prosecutor would revisit the matter after observing the evidence presented during the trial.

“I’m willing to listen to Tim. I’ve known Tim for 30 years. He’s a very hard charging prosecutor. I hope, however, after sitting through this trial and seeing the evidence that was presented from the government as well as from the defense, that he would revisit that issue and hopefully would be able to work something out that would be acceptable to both sides.”

Reddington had previously said prosecutors were not open to a plea deal. He also indicated before the mistrial that the defense was prepared to face another trial. No agreement has been announced, and Cruz has not publicly stated what action prosecutors will take next.

Jury deadlock ends first trial

Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on Friday after jurors failed to reach the unanimous verdict required in the case. The reported division was 11 jurors on one side and one juror on the other after deliberations that followed a lengthy trial in Plymouth County, Massachusetts.

Reddington said the lone holdout had acknowledged having doubt but, in the defense attorney’s view, had not applied the judge’s instructions concerning reasonable doubt. The disagreement prevented the jury from completing its work and left the case unresolved. The court has scheduled a status hearing for Sept. 29, when the next procedural steps may be discussed.

Charges stem from children’s deaths

Lindsay Clancy, 36, is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her children, Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy and Callan Clancy. The children were all under age 6 and were found at the family’s home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in January 2023.

The mistrial did not resolve the criminal charges or determine whether Clancy is legally responsible for the deaths. Prosecutors may evaluate whether to pursue another trial, while the defense is now publicly indicating that a negotiated outcome could be considered. The available account does not identify any specific plea terms.

Defense disputes interpretation of holdout juror

Kevin Reddington initially criticized the holdout juror after the mistrial, saying the juror had an agenda and had deprived the other jurors of their time. He later adopted a more measured position and said the juror had an unquestionable right to maintain a dissenting view.

“I would defend that individual’s right to be a holdout for forever. That’s part of our judicial system. And I respect that.”

Reddington said his objection was not to the juror’s disagreement itself, but to what he described as a refusal to apply the legal standard explained by the judge. He also appealed to President Donald Trump for a pardon, although a presidential pardon does not apply to a state murder case such as Clancy’s.

Family attorney denounces alleged misinformation

Attorney Howard Cooper, who represents Patrick Clancy, said Clancy and his family had been subjected to what he called a growing campaign of defamatory and false claims. The allegations have included claims that Patrick Clancy was involved in the deaths of his children, which Cooper described as baseless.

“Enough is enough. This spread of blatant and baseless falsehoods must stop. Those responsible should understand that there will be consequences, and every appropriate measure will be pursued to hold them accountable, including legally.”

Cooper said law enforcement had been notified and warned that legal action could follow. His statement came as the family faced renewed public attention after the mistrial and discussion of a potential second prosecution.

Summary

The mistrial leaves Lindsay Clancy’s case unresolved and places the next decision with prosecutors and the court. Her attorney’s willingness to consider a plea deal could create an alternative to a second trial, but no negotiations or agreement have been confirmed. The Sept. 29 status hearing is expected to provide the next formal update.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why was the trial declared a mistrial?

Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial after the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. The reported division was 11-1.

Is Lindsay Clancy guaranteed a second trial?

No. Prosecutors have not announced whether they will seek a retrial, and the defense has indicated it is open to discussing a plea agreement.

What happens next in the case?

A status hearing is scheduled for Sept. 29. The court and prosecutors may address the case’s future at that hearing.

Can the president pardon Clancy?

A presidential pardon does not apply to this state case. The trial is being handled in Massachusetts state court rather than federal court.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

David Yannetti, a former Karen Read defense attorney, praised Kevin Reddington as jurors in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial continued deliberating without a verdict. The jury completed six days of deliberations and twice informed the court that it could not reach a unanimous decision. Jurors were scheduled to return Friday, Sept. 4, for a seventh day in the Massachusetts case.

Reddington represents Lindsay Clancy, who is charged with murdering her three children at their Duxbury home in January 2023. Yannetti said the wait is among the most difficult stages of a trial because attorneys and their clients have little control once a case reaches the jury.

The cases involving Clancy and Read are factually different, but Yannetti said both drew intense public attention and involved women with no previous criminal records.

Yannetti Identifies With the Pressure Facing Reddington

David Yannetti, who played a prominent role on Karen Read’s defense team during two Massachusetts murder trials, said the Clancy deliberations brought back the stress of waiting for jurors. He said the most difficult stage begins after both sides finish presenting their cases and the jury leaves the courtroom.

“It immediately brings back the stress and the pressure that comes from having somebody’s life in your hands and the very worst part of a trial, which is when the jury’s out,” Yannetti said.

Yannetti said Kevin Reddington appeared confident despite the uncertainty and had performed well while defending Clancy amid severe allegations and intense public scrutiny.

Clancy’s Charges and Possible Verdicts

Lindsay Clancy faces three counts of murder in the deaths of her children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, who was 8 months old. The children died at the family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in January 2023. The trial is being held in Plymouth Superior Court.

The jury may consider first-degree murder, second-degree murder or manslaughter under the evidence and instructions presented at trial. It could also find Clancy not criminally responsible under her insanity defense.

Judge Rejects Request Involving an Alleged Holdout

During the sixth day of deliberations, the jury sent another note to Judge William Sullivan about its inability to reach a unanimous verdict. After reminding jurors that prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, Sullivan directed them to continue working.

Reddington then requested removal of what he described as an apparent single holdout. He said another juror had accused that person of failing to follow the law. Sullivan rejected the request, leaving the jury intact.

Retired Massachusetts Judge Carol Erskine, who is not involved in the case, said disagreement alone does not establish that a juror is refusing to deliberate.

The Jury’s Extended Deliberations

The Clancy jury completed its sixth day on Thursday, Sept. 3, 2026. Court proceedings ended shortly after 4 p.m., and jurors were expected to return Friday morning for day seven. Their notes indicated difficulty reaching unanimity, but they did not end deliberations.

“It’s torture,” Yannetti said. “You’re all just sort of on the frying pan, being cooked.”

Why the Read Comparison Matters

Yannetti said the Read and Clancy cases are not alike in their underlying facts. He identified a narrower connection: both defendants are professional women with no prior court involvement or criminal records before becoming the focus of heavily watched Massachusetts murder proceedings.

Read’s first trial ended with a deadlocked jury after five days of deliberations in 2024. She was acquitted of all homicide-related charges after her second trial in 2025, when jurors deliberated for four days. Yannetti said Reddington had done a wonderful job defending Clancy in what he called a horrific set of facts.

Summary

The prolonged deliberations have highlighted the strain faced by defense lawyers and clients awaiting a verdict. The court declined to intervene in the jury’s disagreement, and deliberations remained active heading into a seventh day.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who represents Lindsay Clancy?

Kevin Reddington represents Clancy in her Plymouth Superior Court murder trial.

How long had the jury deliberated?

The jury had completed six days by Thursday, Sept. 3, 2026, and was scheduled to begin a seventh day Friday.

What charges does Clancy face?

Clancy faces three counts of murder. The jury may also consider second-degree murder, manslaughter and whether she was not criminally responsible under an insanity defense.

Why was a juror removal request rejected?

Judge William Sullivan rejected the request because disagreement is not necessarily a refusal to deliberate.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

The jury in Lindsay Clancy’s Massachusetts murder trial is set to resume deliberations after spending three days weighing her insanity defense. Clancy faces three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her children, who were found strangled at the family’s Duxbury home in January 2023. A retired Massachusetts Superior Court judge said a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity would not necessarily lead to Clancy’s quick release. He said mental health officials and the courts could maintain her commitment for years if she were considered a danger to herself or others.

What the jury is deciding

The nine-woman, three-man jury is considering whether Clancy should be found not guilty by reason of insanity in the deaths of Cora, Dawson and Callan Clancy. The children were all under 6 when they were found strangled at the family’s home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in January 2023. Clancy, 36, has been charged with three counts of first-degree murder.

The jury, led by a female foreperson, completed its third day of deliberations on Monday without reaching a verdict. Its task includes evaluating the evidence presented during the trial and determining whether the legal standard for an insanity defense has been met.

How an insanity verdict could affect Clancy

Retired Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Jack Lu said an insanity verdict would not be an easy path to freedom. Instead, Clancy could be committed to a mental health facility for a substantial period, with her status subject to periodic review.

“If you are committed on a mental health basis because of a major criminal case in Massachusetts, it is hard to get out,” Lu said. “It is very difficult.”

Lu said Clancy could remain hospitalized “year after year after year” if officials concluded that she continued to pose a danger. The length of confinement would therefore depend on clinical assessments and legal decisions rather than on a fixed sentence tied directly to the murder charges.

The role of mental health officials and courts

Under the process described by Lu, mental health officials would periodically review whether Clancy should remain committed. He argued that these officials frequently work alongside prosecutors or testify for the government, which he said may make them more cautious when evaluating a defendant’s release.

“They’re viewed as an arm of the prosecution,” Lu said. “The people making release decisions have a prosecutorial mindset.”

Lu also identified a separate route through the courts. If the government continued seeking Clancy’s commitment while doctors did not recommend release, the matter could proceed to a contested hearing. A judge would then decide whether she remained a danger to herself or others. A ruling in Clancy’s favor could provide another way for her to leave the institution.

Why the case recalls a Maine tragedy

The Clancy case has been compared with that of Constance Fisher, a 24-year-old Maine woman who drowned her three children in a bathtub in 1954. Fisher was committed to a mental hospital and returned home after several years.

In 1967, Fisher was accused of drowning three more children and was sent back to the hospital. She later escaped and was found dead in the Kennebec River. The historical case has been cited as an example of the difficult questions that can arise when a parent accused of killing children is treated through the mental health system and later considered for release.

When deliberations will continue

The jury asked Judge William Sullivan to be dismissed at about 4 p.m. Monday. Sullivan granted the request, and the jurors are scheduled to return Tuesday morning to continue deliberating.

The jury’s eventual decision will determine whether the case ends with a criminal conviction or proceeds under the legal consequences of an insanity verdict. Regardless of the outcome, Lu’s assessment indicates that a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity could still involve prolonged confinement and additional court proceedings.

Summary

The jury’s deliberations center on both Clancy’s criminal responsibility and the consequences of an insanity finding. A verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity could lead to commitment in a mental health facility, periodic reviews and possible court hearings before any release. The case remains unresolved as jurors prepare to continue their discussions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What charges does Lindsay Clancy face?

Clancy faces three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her children, Cora, Dawson and Callan.

What would an insanity verdict mean?

It could result in Clancy being committed to a mental health facility rather than receiving a conventional criminal sentence. Her confinement could continue as long as officials or a court determined that she remained a danger.

How could Clancy eventually be released?

Mental health officials could recommend release, or Clancy could seek relief through a contested court hearing in which a judge would assess whether she remained dangerous to herself or others.

When will the jury resume deliberations?

The jury is scheduled to return Tuesday morning after asking to be dismissed at about 4 p.m. Monday.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

Lindsay Clancy’s defense has accused prosecutors of appearing dismissive and out of touch with the emotional response surrounding her murder trial. The criticism came as the defense presented evidence supporting its claim that Clancy was experiencing postpartum psychosis when her three children died in 2023. Prosecutors concluded their case Monday, while testimony from a forensic psychologist focused on Clancy’s attempts to obtain mental health assistance. The trial is being held in Plymouth Superior Court in Massachusetts and is expected to last six to eight weeks.

Defense criticism of the prosecution’s courtroom approach

Criminal defense attorney Donna Rotunno said the prosecution’s approach could be misreading the jury’s emotional reaction to the case. She described the prosecutors as “tone deaf,” “uncaring” and “snarky,” while acknowledging that their role is to pursue first-degree murder charges against Lindsay Clancy.

“In sort of ignoring the true emotion that this type of a case invokes, and by ignoring it, you are really tone deaf as to the way the jurors feel.”

Rotunno particularly cited an exchange in which Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham asked Susan Clancy, Lindsay Clancy’s mother-in-law, whether she knew that murder was a “mortal sin.” Judge William Sullivan immediately called a sidebar and ordered the remark stricken from the record after Susan Clancy did not respond.

Family testimony and the jury’s view of Clancy

Susan Clancy’s testimony was presented as a significant moment for the defense because of her relationship to the children and her apparent sympathy toward Lindsay Clancy. Rotunno argued that jurors may struggle to view Clancy as cold-hearted if the family member with a profound reason to grieve continues to support her.

The testimony took place during the trial in Plymouth, Massachusetts, where Clancy faces three first-degree murder counts. Her children, Cora, Dawson and Callan, were found strangled at the family’s Duxbury home in January 2023. Cora was 5, Dawson was 3 and Callan was 7 months old.

Mental health evidence and alleged efforts to seek help

The defense has argued that Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis when the children died. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington questioned clinical forensic psychologist Paul Zeizel about Clancy’s mental state, her belief that her brain had been damaged and her reported thoughts of suicide.

Zeizel testified that Clancy contacted a suicide hotline in December 2022 but did not receive assistance because she reportedly did not have a plan. He said she contacted the hotline again without obtaining help. He also testified that Clancy speaks about her children, loves them, misses them and thinks about them nearly every day.

“She really loves them and misses them and thinks of them every single day. Almost every moment of the day.”

Dispute over evidence from McLean Hospital

Judge Sullivan rejected a defense request to add Emily Thorndike, a former clinical social worker at McLean Hospital, to the witness list. The defense said Thorndike’s experience in the same short-term unit where Clancy received treatment could challenge what it considered an incomplete portrayal of the facility and the treatment options available to Clancy.

Although Thorndike will not testify before the jury, Sullivan allowed the defense to introduce certain records concerning staffing and programs at McLean during Clancy’s treatment. The ruling permits the defense to address the hospital’s resources without allowing the proposed witness to give live testimony.

Next steps in the trial and expected closing arguments

The defense is expected to continue presenting its case Thursday. Supporters plan to gather outside Plymouth County Superior Court wearing pink, while others have been encouraged to organize similar gatherings elsewhere. Clancy is aware of the support, according to Reddington.

Reddington said closing arguments are expected Monday, although he has not disclosed whether Clancy will testify. The witness list contains more than 200 names, and the trial is projected to continue for six to eight weeks. The jury will ultimately decide whether the evidence supports the prosecution’s murder charges or the defense’s claim that Clancy’s mental illness prevented her from forming the required intent.

Summary

The trial has centered on the competing narratives of intentional murder and severe postpartum mental illness. The defense is using family testimony, expert evidence and records from Clancy’s treatment history to argue that she was experiencing psychosis and had sought help. Prosecutors have completed their presentation, and the court is now moving toward the defense’s remaining evidence and closing arguments.

Frequently Asked Questions

What charges does Lindsay Clancy face?

Clancy faces three counts of first-degree murder in connection with the deaths of her three children in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in 2023.

What is the defense arguing?

The defense argues that Clancy was experiencing postpartum psychosis and that her severe mental illness affected her ability to form the intent required for murder.

When are closing arguments expected?

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington said closing arguments are expected Monday. He has not said whether Clancy will testify.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.