Lindsay Clancy to Return to Court After Mistrial as Retrial and Dismissal Fight Looms
Lindsay Clancy is scheduled to appear in court Tuesday for the first time since her murder trial ended in a mistrial, a status conference that will offer the clearest signal yet of how prosecutors and defense attorneys intend to move forward after a month of uncertainty.
The hearing is expected to address pending defense motions aimed at preventing another trial, the defense's effort to obtain more information about the lone holdout juror, and—if Plymouth County prosecutors decide to retry Clancy—the timetable for a new proceeding.
Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on September 4 after jurors sent several notes saying they were deadlocked. One juror, the panel indicated, was blocking a unanimous finding that Clancy was not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility for killing her three children.
Clancy has admitted to killing Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months. She strangled them and then attempted suicide in January 2023, her lawyers have said. At trial, her defense argued she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time and could not be held criminally responsible.
A case that has not faded
The weeks since the mistrial have done little to quiet public fascination with the case. Jurors have given revealing interviews about their deliberations, Patrick Clancy—the children's father and Lindsay Clancy's former husband—spoke to "60 Minutes," and online debates over the evidence and the verdict have continued unabated.
Prosecutors have not said whether they will retry Clancy. Legal experts say both sides are likely weighing whether a new jury would reach the same conclusion as the first, which largely sided with the defense. At least one juror believes it would.
"If they tried the trial again the way they did, nine times out of ten, I think a jury would come back with not guilty by reason of insanity," juror Nick Dargie told ABC News. "No doubt in my mind."
But the prospect of another weekslong trial filled with graphic and emotional testimony is daunting for many, including Clancy's supporters—who argue she was failed by a healthcare system that often overlooks maternal mental health—and Patrick Clancy, who has been the target of rampant online conspiracy theories.
"The prospect of reliving this tragedy through another trial is extraordinarily painful—for Patrick, for his family, and for all of us," an attorney for Patrick Clancy said in a statement earlier this month.
Prosecutors stand by charges
Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz struck a defiant tone when the mistrial was declared, insisting the first-degree murder charges were "warranted and appropriate."
"In the end, I bring it all back to the child victims in this case—Cora, Dawson, and Callan," Cruz said outside the courthouse as Clancy supporters heckled him. "This was and has always been about getting justice for those three little babies."
The parties are expected to discuss the possibility of a retrial at Tuesday's status conference. Sullivan could set a new trial date.
Attorneys may also reveal whether any plea negotiations are underway behind the scenes. Clancy's defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, has said he is open to working with prosecutors to avoid a second trial, though he told CNN's Anderson Cooper he would never accept a deal that required his client to serve jail time.
Legal experts and Massachusetts lawyers have expressed skepticism that an agreement can be reached, pointing to the difficulty of finding common ground and the factors Cruz must weigh as he considers another trial.
Defense pushes for dismissal
Clancy's legal team has filed motions seeking to resolve the case without a second trial, including one asking the judge to dismiss the charges altogether. The defense argues that a retrial would violate her protection against double jeopardy.
In the filing, Clancy's attorneys said Sullivan improperly declined their repeated requests to question the holdout juror or the jury foreperson, and declared a mistrial without "manifest necessity"—a high legal threshold that means all other options for reaching a verdict were exhausted.
"Respectfully, the Court's rejection of the multiple requests for judicial inquiry constitutes legal error which led, inexorably, to the mistrial being declared without manifest necessity," the defense team wrote.
Clancy's attorneys criticized Sullivan's "well-intentioned" but "limited" questioning of jurors. On the sixth day of deliberations, the judge called jurors to the bench one by one and asked them under oath whether they could apply the law as instructed. The defense argued he should have probed the foreperson's specific complaint to determine how best to proceed.
Reddington filed a separate motion asking the judge to find Clancy not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. He argued the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office did not present sufficient evidence that Clancy was criminally responsible for her actions.
"The Commonwealth had to prove that a woman all six experts agreed was mentally ill nonetheless kept the capacity the law demands. It did not," Reddington wrote, referring to mental health experts who testified for both the prosecution and the defense.
Sullivan denied two similar motions during the trial. Such motions are routine in criminal proceedings.
Fight over the holdout juror
At Tuesday's hearing, the parties are also expected to address a defense motion asking Sullivan to further investigate the lone holdout juror by obtaining some of his cellphone records and questioning him.
Several jurors have spoken to reporters since the trial ended, with some alleging the holdout did not adequately engage with the rest of the panel and scrolled on his phone during deliberations. The jury foreperson told NBC10 Boston that the lone juror refused to find Clancy not guilty even though he acknowledged having reasonable doubt—a violation of the law, the foreperson said.
The holdout said in a statement this month that his position was misrepresented by some fellow jurors who spoke to the press. He stands by his belief that the evidence showed Clancy was guilty.
The defense motion—which did not name the lone juror—requested his cellphone records from the time spent in the deliberation room, his juror questionnaire, and certain background information related to his responses about his experience with the law.
Reddington wrote that Sullivan should question the holdout about his responses during jury selection, some of his other sworn statements, and "the use of a mobile telephone or receipt of outside information during deliberations." The questioning would be limited and would not delve into the content of deliberations, the motion said.
The defense attorney suggested Sullivan could also ask Juror 10 about the holdout's cellphone use. That juror, Dargie, previously told ABC News the holdout "wouldn't engage" and spent time "scrolling on his phone" during deliberations.
The defense also asked the court to preserve other information, including surveillance footage from the hallway outside the deliberation room.
The holdout's attorney, Edward Paltzik, criticized Reddington's motion as "disgusting," saying it amounts to an attack on the juror and the U.S. Constitution.
"If the new normal is that jurors are going to face brutal reprisals for disagreeing with a defense attorney, you can kiss the Sixth Amendment goodbye," Paltzik wrote on X.
What Tuesday could signal
Although the hearing is procedural, its consequences are substantial. It could clarify whether Cruz will pursue another trial, whether Reddington can persuade the judge to dismiss the case, or whether both sides will explore a resolution that avoids another emotionally draining courtroom battle.
It will also keep national attention on a case that has become a flashpoint in broader debates over postpartum psychosis, maternal mental health, and how the legal system treats mothers accused of violence against their children.