Lindsay Clancy is expected to return to a Plymouth courthouse Tuesday for the first time since a mistrial was declared in her murder case earlier this month. Judge William Sullivan is expected to consider several motions from the defense that could impact next steps in the case.
Sullivan declared the mistrial after jurors were not able to reach a unanimous verdict on first-degree murder charges for the deaths of Clancy’s children in their Duxbury home in 2023.
Clancy’s attorneys do not dispute that she strangled her three children, but have argued that she should not be held criminally responsible because of her postpartum mental health issues.
Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not said whether he plans to re-try the case.
The defense has filed several motions to be considered at Tuesday’s hearing, including a motion to dismiss the case because of so-called “double jeopardy” protections. The motion argues that Sullivan should not have declared a mistrial, but instead should have inquired about one juror whom the other jurors said was not following the law.
During the trial, the jury foreperson reported that one juror expressed doubt about whether Clancy was criminally responsible for her children’s deaths, but still thought she should be convicted. The judge reiterated instructions that if a juror had reasonable doubt of Clancy’s guilt, they must acquit, but the jury still did not reach a unanimous verdict.
In court documents, Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington argued that 11 of the 12 jurors were prepared to vote that Clancy was not criminally responsible for killing her children.
“Where the court receives information indicating that one or more jurors is not fulfilling his duty to apply the law as instructed, the Court has an obligation to inquire,” the motion reads.
David Rossman, an emeritus law professor at Boston University, said the motion arguing double jeopardy is the most significant of those currently before the judge because it’s one of the few issues that provides defendants the right to appellate review before a trial.
“Either side’s going to appeal whichever way the double jeopardy motion gets decided,” Rossman said. “So an appellate court’s going to look at it either way, or at least one appellate judge.”
Another motion asks for an investigation of the so-called “holdout juror,” who has retained legal counsel after reports that he may have omitted his involvement in the criminal legal system when prospective jurors were questioned by the court at the start of Clancy’s trial. The juror questionnaires are impounded, so it’s unclear how the juror answered. Involvement in the criminal legal system would not disqualify a juror, but a juror could be fined for lying on the questionnaire.
Rossman said because it appears that the judge followed correct legal procedures in instructing the jury, that motion may not go forward unless the court has other information about the holdout juror that has not been made public.
Most legal experts say it would be unusual for a judge to investigate a juror, and they don’t think Sullivan will agree to the investigation request.
“ It’s going to be a hard road for the defendant because it is not in the public interest to interfere with jury deliberations in the way that the defense is asking,” said retired judge and Boston College law school lecturer Jack Lu.
The defense motions are “a bit of a Hail Mary pass,” according to R. Michael Cassidy, a Boston College law professor.
Cassidy said he thinks the judge will not rule on the motions in court Tuesday, but “will rule on them quickly thereafter.”
It’s up to prosecutors to decide whether Clancy will face another trial and whether she’ll again be charged with first-degree murder. If prosecutors opt for lesser charges, such as second-degree murder or manslaughter, a jury trial would not be required. Cassidy said it’s likely that prosecutors are thinking about these motions and the likely appeals process.
“One of the things all these post trial motions does is it alerts the prosecutor to the fact that, ‘Geez, even if we retried this on first-degree murder, even if we were successful, that conviction could be overturned because there are a lot of legal issues for an appellate court to decide,’ ” Cassidy said.
Cassidy also said the ultimate decision lies with the Plymouth County district attorney.
“Some people think that the judge has the most discretion in the criminal justice system, but I strongly feel it’s the prosecutor,” Cassidy said. “If the judge denies these motions and the prosecutor insists on going forward with another first-degree murder indictment, there’s absolutely nothing the judge can do.”
Legal experts say the notoriety of the case and the resources involved in holding another lengthy and emotional trial could prompt a deal where Clancy pleads guilty and continues to be held at the state hospital where she is receiving mental health treatment.
Whatever happens in court Tuesday, it will likely take some time before the Clancy case is resolved.
This article was originally published on WBUR.org.
Copyright 2026 WBUR
