A Massachusetts judge has denied Lindsay Clancy’s motion to dismiss her murder charges, paving the way for her to face a second trial for allegedly killing her three children.
Judge William Sullivan also ruled Monday against imposing a silence order on the parties as he prepares for the upcoming trial.
Last week, Sullivan heard arguments on Clancy’s motion to dismiss that a new trial would violate his double jeopardy protections. Sullivan too said he was inclined to set a trial date in March 2027 when the parties reconvene next Monday.
The Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office has not definitively committed to retrying Clancy, remaining evasive during last week’s hearing. The prosecutor’s office declined to comment on the developments on Monday. CNN also contacted Clancy’s defense team.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington, in court last week, accused the prosecution of “(swinging) everyone in the breeze” and questioned why they hadn’t yet made a decision about a new trial or what charges his client might face..
The judge ruled Monday that a new trial would not violate Clancy’s double jeopardy rights because there was a “clear necessity” for a mistrial, which he declared in September. Manifest necessity constitutes a heavy legal burden that means all other options for reaching a verdict have been exhausted.
The judge disagreed with Clancy’s defense assertion that Sullivan had not exhausted all options to build the case. jury deadlock before declaring his first mistrial against a recalcitrant juror.
Sullivan also disagrees with the defense’s claims that the holdout juror, who was widely reported in the media, refused to deliberate.
“The foreman’s notes do not plausibly suggest that Juror Doe refused to consider the trial evidence or that he disagreed with the law, as the Court explained in its instructions,” Sullivan wrote in Monday’s ruling.
The information released about the juror since the end of the trial “cannot weaken” the decision for a mistrial, the judge also said.
Sullivan ruled in a third order that Clancy’s legal team is not entitled to records related to the holdout juror, including his cellphone records and the jury selection questionnaire, because it is not relevant to Clancy’s motion to dismiss or any new trial.
Sullivan said he also saw no justification for questioning the juror under oath at this point.
Holdout juror Michael Péguy Desronvil, who came forward after being subjected to public scrutiny, said his position had been misrepresented by some of his fellow jurors who spoke to the press.
In a separate order Monday, Sullivan said prosecutors had not adequately demonstrated that public statements made by Clancy’s defense team outside of court posed a serious threat of prejudice that could harm jury selection or the outcome of any retrial.
The judge said prosecutors could renew the request if circumstances changed and reminded Clancy’s defense of its ethical obligations.
This story has been updated with additional information.
Gn headline
