Judge rules Lindsay Clancy can be tried again after her mistrial
Judge William F. Sullivan rejected her lawyers' double-jeopardy argument Nov. 9 and turned down prosecutors' request for a gag order. The case returns to court Nov. 16, when he plans to set a trial date.
Case file
Lindsay Clancy case Mistrial
Topics
Watch the court record with us.
Subscribe on YouTube (opens in a new tab)
Bench Watch Brief
Lindsay Clancy's murder trial ended in a mistrial Sept. 4 when the jury deadlocked. On Nov. 9, Judge William F. Sullivan denied her lawyers' motion to dismiss the charges on double-jeopardy grounds, ruling that the deadlock made the mistrial necessary. He also denied the defense's bid to investigate the holdout juror and the prosecution's request for a gag order. The case returns to court Nov. 16, when he plans to set a trial date.
Lindsay Clancy is charged with murder in the deaths of her three young children in Duxbury in 2023. She argued that postpartum mental illness left her not criminally responsible. On Sept. 4, after the jury said it was “unable to come to a unanimous decision,” Judge William F. Sullivan declared a mistrial (Boston.com).
Her lawyers say the jury was split 11-1 in favor of finding her not criminally responsible. That count comes from defense filings, and several jurors have said the same publicly (WBUR; NBC News).
Can she be tried again?
On Sept. 21, her lawyers asked the judge to dismiss the charges. They argue he ended the trial without “manifest necessity” and should first have looked into whether the holdout juror was following the judge's instructions, so a second trial would violate her protection against double jeopardy (Boston.com).
Bench Watch BreakdownDouble jeopardyShow or hide the explanation
- What it means
- The Constitution says no one can be tried twice for the same crime. When a trial ends with no verdict, the question is whether a new trial counts as a second one.
- In this case
- Clancy's lawyers said the judge ended her trial without a real need to, so she couldn't be tried again. On Nov. 9, he ruled that the jury's deadlock was that need.
The defense also asked the judge to hold a hearing to question the holdout juror. On Oct. 21, Sullivan said no, writing that “any further judicial inquiry is inappropriate” (ABC News).
At a Nov. 2 hearing, defense lawyer Martin Weinberg argued Sullivan should have investigated further after the foreperson's notes before declaring a mistrial. Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague defended the mistrial. Sullivan didn't rule from the bench (AP; The Boston Globe).
On Nov. 9, Sullivan denied the motion. He wrote that there was “manifest necessity for a mistrial based on the jury's deadlock,” and that “a retrial on the murder indictments does not violate Clancy's right not to be placed in double jeopardy” (AP; ABC News).
He also refused the defense's requests to question the holdout juror and obtain the juror's records. He wrote that “the secrecy of jury deliberations is a bedrock of our judicial system,” and that releasing the records would “discourage citizens from being willing to serve as jurors in the future” (AP; ABC News).
Already decided
On Oct. 1, Sullivan denied her renewed motion for a finding of not guilty. He wrote that the evidence “would permit a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the charge of murder,” and that “[m]ental illness alone does not preclude a finding of criminal responsibility” (WBUR, Fox News).
A gag order?
Prosecutors asked the judge to bar lawyers' out-of-court statements that could prejudice the case. WBZ-TV and Boston Globe Media Partners opposed the request, and the defense called it an unconstitutional prior restraint (CBS Boston; AP). On Nov. 9, Sullivan denied it, finding prosecutors hadn't shown a substantial likelihood that lawyers' statements would materially prejudice the trial. He said they could ask again if circumstances change, and reminded the defense of its ethical obligations (ABC News; CBS Boston).
Bench Watch BreakdownGag orderShow or hide the explanation
- What it means
- A judge's order that limits what the lawyers in a case can say about it in public.
- In this case
- Prosecutors asked for one, pointing to the defense lawyer's comments to the media. News outlets and the defense opposed it, and the judge denied it Nov. 9.
Will there be a second trial?
The case returns to court Nov. 16, when Sullivan plans to set a trial date. He has said he would like a new trial to begin in March 2027 (ABC News). Prosecutors said they intend to retry Clancy but haven't decided whether to pursue the same charges or a reduced charge, AP reports. A spokesperson for District Attorney Timothy Cruz declined to comment on the ruling (AP). On Nov. 2, Cruz said, “I'll be talking more on November 16” (CNN via East Idaho News).
On Nov. 2, defense lawyer Kevin Reddington told Sullivan he wants a trial this spring (Boston 25 News; CNN via East Idaho News). Massachusetts judges must retire at 70, and Sullivan is slated to retire in mid-2027, Courthouse News reports (Courthouse News).