Lindsay Clancy is due back in a Massachusetts court on Monday for a hearing that could establish a date for a new trial—or determine whether one will take place at all. Prosecutors have not yet said whether they intend to try her again over the deaths of her three children.
The hearing is the latest development in a triple-homicide case that became one of the most closely debated criminal trials in the United States before ending without a jury verdict. A previous trial was declared a mistrial in September after the 12-member jury failed to reach unanimity.
The deadlock followed a split of 11 to 1 in favor of finding Clancy not criminally responsible, according to the case details. Judge William Sullivan declared the mistrial after the jury could not resolve the dispute.
Clancy, 36, is accused of strangling Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, at the family’s home in Duxbury in January 2023 before attempting suicide. Prosecutors argued that she acted intentionally, rationally and quickly. Her defense maintained that she was experiencing postpartum psychosis and could not be held criminally responsible.
Clancy did not testify during the trial. She has remained at Tewksbury Hospital since shortly after the deaths and is partially paralyzed as a result of the suicide attempt. If convicted, she could face life in prison. A finding that she was not criminally responsible would likely lead to proceedings for her hospitalization in a psychiatric facility.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington has filed several motions seeking to prevent a retrial. He sought additional information about the dissenting juror, including certain cellphone records and his jury-selection questionnaire, and asked the judge to question him about statements made under oath.
The juror, Michael Péguy Desronvil, said his position had been distorted by some fellow jurors who spoke to the press. Judge Sullivan rejected the defense’s request for another evidentiary inquiry on October 21, ruling that it had been filed too late and improperly intruded on juror privacy.
The judge wrote that further judicial investigation would be inappropriate because courts should not examine a juror’s subjective reasoning, thought process, view of the case or relationship with other jurors, nor the substance of jury deliberations or disagreements among its members.
Reddington has also asked the judge to dismiss the charges, arguing that another prosecution would violate protections against double jeopardy. He contends that Sullivan acted improperly by declining to re-question the dissenting juror or the jury foreperson during deliberations and by declaring a mistrial without a “manifest necessity.”
Prosecutors argued that the judge properly questioned the jurors in court and followed the law when he declared the mistrial. At a September hearing, the defense also asked Sullivan to find Clancy not guilty, arguing that prosecutors had not presented sufficient evidence that she killed her children. The judge rejected that request several days later.
A plea agreement remains a remote possibility and could bring the case to a final resolution. The parties are expected to address the possible scheduling of a new trial and the outstanding defense motions at Monday’s hearing.
Sources: CNN Brasil.