Prosecutors plan retrial in Lindsay Clancy child murder case

Massachusetts prosecutors plan to retry Lindsay Clancy over the deaths of her three children, but have not decided what charges she would face after her first trial ended with a hung jury.

At a hearing Monday in Plymouth Superior Court, prosecutor Jennifer Sprague told Judge William Sullivan, “This would be a retrial,” while saying its form would depend on rulings in the case. Sullivan set a November 16 hearing to decide motions, including a defense request to dismiss the first-degree murder charges. He said a second trial could begin as soon as March 2027.

Clancy was charged with killing 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan at their home in Duxbury on January 24, 2023. Her lawyers have said she killed the children but was not criminally responsible because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis. Prosecutors say she planned to strangle them, knew right from wrong and acted deliberately. Clancy pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder.

Her trial ended on September 4 when the 12 jurors could not agree on a verdict. Eleven favored finding her not guilty by reason of insanity, while one believed she was guilty, according to CBS News.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington pressed for a spring trial and an answer on whether prosecutors would pursue first-degree murder charges again or bring lesser charges. “I am not going to have this woman sit incarcerated for the next year or two or three,” he said. “I want a date and I want it this spring.” Sprague said prosecutors wanted Sullivan’s rulings before committing to a date or specifying charges. District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not publicly announced plans for the case, the BBC reported.

Much of Monday’s three-hour hearing centered on the lone holdout juror. Defense lawyer Martin Weinberg argued that two notes from the jury foreperson should have prompted Sullivan to investigate whether that juror was deliberating in good faith. Weinberg said further questioning might have provided grounds to remove the juror and allow deliberations to continue, rather than declare a mistrial. The defense argued that retrying Clancy would violate her constitutional rights.

According to Al Jazeera, Sullivan spoke with each juror after receiving the notes, reminded them of their duties and asked whether they could apply the law. All said they could. Sprague argued that nothing showed the holdout’s position resulted from bias or a refusal to deliberate. “He refused to agree,” she said.

Reddington sought records related to the juror, including his phone and phone records, and alleged that he had used a phone during deliberations and had not been truthful during jury selection. Heather O’Connor, the juror’s lawyer, disputed the basis for investigating him. She said jury notes had not complained of improper phone use or outside information, and that looking at a phone was not the same as researching the case.

Sprague also sought an order restricting lawyers’ public comments, arguing that Reddington’s statements could prejudice a future jury. Defense lawyer Laura McConnell opposed it, saying Reddington had not tried the case through the media. Sullivan did not rule Monday on that request or the motions concerning dismissal and the juror.