Lindsay Clancy back in court after mistrial as defense seeks to block retrial in Duxbury child killings
By Nate Raymond and Luc Cohen
BOSTON, Sept. 29 (Reuters) - Lindsay Clancy returned to court on Tuesday as her defense team moved to block a retrial and asked a judge to acquit the Massachusetts mother in the 2023 killings of her three young children.
Judge William Sullivan in Plymouth, Massachusetts, heard arguments after declaring a mistrial on Sept. 4. The mistrial came after a single juror refused to join the other 11 in reaching a unanimous verdict on whether Clancy should be convicted of murder or found not guilty by reason of insanity, known in Massachusetts as lack of criminal responsibility.
Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz's office has not said publicly whether it will retry Clancy, 36, on first-degree murder charges, which carry a life sentence. Prosecutors could also seek a plea deal or retry her on lesser second-degree murder charges, which would allow her to waive a jury trial and have a judge decide the case.
There was no dispute at trial that Clancy strangled her children with exercise bands on Jan. 24, 2023, in the basement of the family's Duxbury home, a Boston suburb. She then cut herself with a knife and jumped from a second-story window in an attempt to kill herself, leaving her paralyzed.
Defense lawyer Kevin Reddington argued during the first trial that Clancy did not understand that what she was doing was wrong and that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis when she killed Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and 8-month-old Callan.
At Tuesday's hearing, Reddington told Sullivan that the trial record contained a 'total and complete lack of evidence' that Clancy knew her actions were wrong. He also said non-lawyers often struggle with the legal concept that a defendant can admit the acts while denying criminal responsibility, a misunderstanding that has led some members of the public to call Clancy a 'demon' and demand her execution.
'This is coming from politicians, from President Trump all the way down,' Reddington said.
Several jurors said in televised interviews that, absent the one holdout, they were prepared to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity. If she were acquitted on those grounds, she would be committed to a state psychiatric hospital for evaluation, with her commitment subject to regular court review.
Clancy's lawyers have filed a series of motions urging Sullivan to declare her not guilty and to bar a retrial, arguing that the mistrial was unnecessary and that a second trial would violate her constitutional protection against double jeopardy. They say jurors made clear in notes to the judge that the holdout was refusing to follow instructions on reasonable doubt and should have been dismissed rather than allowing the case to be retried.
Defense attorneys also want to review normally confidential jury records and question the holdout about his truthfulness during jury selection and his cellphone use. Sullivan said he would take up that request and several other motions at a Nov. 2 hearing.
The holdout juror's lawyer, Edward Paltzik, told Fox News in an interview that aired Monday that his client, Michael Desronvil, 'had zero doubt' and 'rigidly applied the reasonable doubt standard.'
The case has drawn attention to postpartum psychosis, mental health care and how the criminal justice system assigns responsibility when severe mental illness is at issue. It also leaves prosecutors with a difficult legal choice: pursue a second murder trial, negotiate a resolution, or accept an outcome that would send Clancy to a psychiatric hospital rather than prison.
(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi, Cynthia Osterman and Bill Berkrot)