After her triple-murder case ended in a mistrial, Lindsay Clancy will appear in court Tuesday for a status conference that should signal how the controversial case will proceed following a month of uncertainty. At the hearing, prosecutors and the defence are expected to address pending motions from Clancy’s attorney to stave off another trial, the defence’s attempt to obtain more information about the holdout juror and – if prosecutors decide to retry Clancy – the schedule for a new trial. Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial in the divisive case on September 4 after the jury sent several notes saying they were deadlocked and that a single juror was preventing the panel from unanimously finding Clancy not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility for killing her children. At trial, Clancy admitted to killing her children – Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months – but argued she was suffering from postpartum psychosis when she fatally strangled them and then attempted suicide in January 2023. Still, interest in the case has yet to dissipate: The weeks since the trial ended have been filled with revelatory interviews with several jurors about their deliberations, a heartbreaking “60 Minutes” interview with the father of the three victims and fervid online debates about the complicated case. Prosecutors have not announced whether they will retry Clancy, but experts said both sides are likely considering whether another jury would reach the same conclusion, largely siding with the defence. At least one of Clancy’s jurors believes they 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 thought of enduring another weekslong trial full of heartbreaking and graphic testimony is daunting for some, including Clancy’s supporters – who believe she was victimized by a healthcare system that often overlooks maternal mental health – and her former husband, who became the subject 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. Defence wants to avoid a retrial … Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz struck a defiant tone when the judge declared a mistrial, 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 he was heckled by Clancy supporters. “This was and has always been about getting justice for those three little babies.” The parties are expected to address the potential of a retrial at the status conference Tuesday. Sullivan may schedule a new trial date. The attorneys could also offer a glimpse into any plea negotiations that may be happening behind the scenes. Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, has indicated he is open to working with prosecutors to avert a second trial, though he told CNN’s Anderson Cooper he would never agree to a deal in which his client would serve any jail time. Legal experts and Massachusetts lawyers have expressed skepticism an agreement could be reached, citing the difficulty the parties would have in finding common ground and the various factors Cruz must weigh as he considers a retrial. Clancy’s legal team has also filed motions seeking to resolve the case without a second trial, including one which asks the judge to dismiss the charges altogether, arguing a retrial would violate her rights protecting her from double jeopardy. In the filing, Clancy’s defence attorneys argued 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 burden that means all other options to reach 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 defence attorneys criticized Sullivan’s “well-intentioned” but “limited” questioning of the jurors, whom he called to the bench one-by-one on the sixth day of deliberations and asked under oath if they could apply the law as instructed. “The Court should have instead probed the foreperson’s specific complaint in order to make a reasoned decision as to how best to proceed,” Clancy’s defence wrote. Reddington filed a separate motion asking the judge to enter a finding of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, arguing the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office did not present sufficient evidence that Clancy is 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,” he wrote in the motion, referring to a slate of mental health experts who testified for the prosecution and the defense. Sullivan denied two similar motions – which are routine in criminal proceedings – during the course of the trial. … and asks judge to investigate holdout juror At the status conference Tuesday, the parties are also expected to address the defence’s motion asking the judge 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 about the holdout, with some alleging he did not adequately engage with the rest of the panel and scrolled on his phone during deliberations. The jury foreperson told NBC10 Boston the lone juror refused to find Clancy not guilty even though he acknowledged he had reasonable doubt, a violation of the law. The holdout, however, said in a statement this month his position was misrepresented by some of his fellow jurors who spoke to the press, standing by his belief that the evidence showed Clancy was guilty. The defence’s motion – which did not identify the lone juror by name – requested the holdout’s cellphone records during the time spent in the deliberation room, his juror questionnaire, and certain background information related to his responses on the questionnaire about his experience with the law. Reddington wrote the judge should then question the holdout about his responses during the jury selection process, 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, the motion said, and not delve into the content of deliberations. The defence attorney suggested Sullivan could also ask Juror 10 about the holdout’s cellphone use. That juror, Dargie, previously told ABC News the holdout juror “wouldn’t engage” and would spend time “scrolling on his phone” during deliberations. The defence also requested the court preserve other information, such as the surveillance footage from the hallway outside the deliberation room. The holdout’s attorney criticized Reddington’s “disgusting” motion, saying in a statement 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 defence attorney, you can kiss the Sixth Amendment goodbye,” attorney Edward Paltzik wrote on X.
