It remains unclear whether Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother who killed her three children by strangulation, will face trial again after a judge ruled Tuesday to postpone the decision.
Massachusetts Superior Court Judge William Sullivan granted a request from prosecutors and Clancy’s attorneys, who both pointed to outstanding motions in the case when asking to postpone setting a new trial date. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Nov. 2.
On the day a mistrial was declared early this month, Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said he would make a decision on retrying “shortly.” But prosecutors have yet to say definitively that they would like to again prosecute Clancy, 36.
Cruz told reporters after Tuesday’s hearing that his office will make a decision “as soon as they get all the information.”
The case has captivated the public and sparked conversation about postpartum mental health — including whether women experiencing perinatal mood disorders receive enough support. Clancy has admitted to killing Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months, but she said afterward that she had heard voices telling her to kill them and herself. Her lawyers attributed her actions to postpartum-induced psychosis and asked jurors to find her not guilty by reason of insanity.
In court Tuesday, Kevin Reddington, an attorney for Clancy, argued that the prosecution had not presented sufficient evidence that she actually killed her children. He said because of that, the court must find her not guilty of murder.
Reddington made his argument under Massachusetts’s Criminal Procedure Rule 25, which allows a judge to acquit a defendant when there isn’t sufficient evidence to support a conviction.
“I ask the court to hearken back to the evidence that was presented and ask yourself, where’s the evidence that she did this?” Reddington said.
Reddington also said law enforcement failed to properly investigate the killings and instead assumed Clancy’s guilt.
Prosecutors called his argument “laughable.”
Attorneys also argued a motion from defense attorneys to make juror notes and sidebar discussions from the trial not subject to impoundment, or restriction from public access. Prosecutors argued against the motion, telling the court that granting it could have a “chilling effect” on the willingness of the public to serve on future juries.
Sullivan did not rule on either of those matters, nor on a motion from the Boston Globe seeking access to the sidebar conferences.
As the case continues to receive public attention, prosecutors filed a motion Monday asking that attorneys in the case be prevented from speaking publicly about it. The prosecutors argued that Clancy’s lawyers “engaged in substantial publicity pre-trial, during trial, and post-trial” that has “inevitably tainted” any future jury pool.
Reddington often spoke to reporters and onlookers outside the courthouse during deliberations, and also made other statements to journalists. Prosecutors are requesting that he and Clancy’s other attorneys be prevented from making further comments “to protect the integrity and fairness of the judicial system.”
On Tuesday, Sullivan said the attorneys would argue the request for a gag order on Nov. 2.
In the three weeks since the mistrial, the case has been fraught with drama, largely centering on a holdout juror. Eleven of the 12 jurors were prepared to find Clancy not guilty after a six-week trial. During deliberations, the lead juror, who has since identified herself as Roni Carlson, sent a note to the judge indicating there was a lone juror who had expressed doubt about Clancy’s guilt but refused to return a verdict of not guilty.
Online sleuths identified Michael P. Desronvil, 48, as the holdout, despite court orders to keep jurors’ identities sealed. Desronvil has retained Edward Paltzik, a defamation lawyer who has represented President Donald Trump in legal disputes, to represent him.
Reddington filed a motion Sept. 18 to conduct a “limited inquiry” into Desronvil and to preserve all juror records. After the jury was dismissed, the Boston Globe first reported that Desronvil had an active civil restraining order for allegedly assaulting his nephew. Part of Reddington’s requested inquiry is to determine whether this information was disclosed during voir dire, the legal process where prospective jurors are questioned to check for bias.
Paltzik called the motion “a full-frontal attack on the U.S. Constitution.”
“This is certainly not the final word from us on this subject, but merely our first words,” he said Sept. 22 in a social media post.
Sullivan on Tuesday postponed arguments on that motion until Nov. 2.
On the final day of jury deliberations, Reddington unsuccessfully sought to have Desronvil removed. Desronvil has since said through his attorney, Paltzik, that he had no doubts about Clancy’s guilt.
Cruz, the district attorney, could choose to retry Clancy on murder charges. But Margaret McLean, a former Massachusetts prosecutor, said it’s possible Cruz could opt to try Clancy again under a different charge.
“There’s two things: He wants to seek justice for those three kids, but he also doesn’t want to see another mistrial,” McLean said Monday. “So maybe what he can do is drop the first-degree murder charges down to possibly manslaughter, and then maybe Lindsay Clancy will elect to have a trial before a judge.”
The district attorney’s office could also decide against trying the case again, though legal experts previously told The Washington Post they view this as unlikely.
Clancy has been in custody at Tewksbury State Hospital since the mistrial.
The post No decision on retrial in Lindsay Clancy murder case appeared first on Washington Post.
