Lindsay Clancy returned to court Monday as her lawyers asked a Massachusetts judge to throw out the murder case against her, while a separate fight erupted over allegations involving the lone juror whose vote helped produce a mistrial. Judge William Sullivan's pending decisions could determine whether Clancy can be prosecuted again after jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict in September. Prosecutors said they are headed toward another trial, although the precise charges and timing remain unresolved, while the court is scheduled to reconvene November 16 before a possible March retrial.
The hearing in Plymouth Superior Court revisited the extraordinary breakdown of Clancy's first trial over the 2023 deaths of her three young children but quickly expanded into allegations about cellphone use, a juror's background, post-trial interviews and even the conduct of other members of the panel. Clancy, 36, has not disputed killing her children. Her defense argued at trial that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was not criminally responsible, while prosecutors maintained that she understood what she was doing and acted deliberately.
The jury ultimately deadlocked, with an 11-1 split in favor of finding her not criminally responsible. Here are the biggest developments from Monday's hearing. One of the most consequential allegations came from Clancy attorney Kevin Reddington, who told the court that the defense had obtained information indicating the holdout juror used a cellphone during the case.
Reddington said another juror had reported seeing him scrolling on the device and alleged that he researched terms connected with evidence presented at trial. The defense argued that the allegation raised questions about whether outside information could have entered the jury's deliberations. The court did not find the allegation established, and the juror's attorney disputed the defense's characterization.
She argued that the post-mistrial account amounted to an allegation that the juror had a phone in hand at times, not proof that he used it to research the case or contact anyone about the trial. She also said every juror had been allowed to keep a phone. That distinction became central to her argument against further investigation.
She warned that allowing one juror's phone to be searched based on information that surfaced after the mistrial could have broader consequences for future jurors. "If that's enough to put a juror under oath, to search their phone, to pull their history, then the lesson every future juror in this Commonwealth is simple: agree with the majority or potentially be investigated," she told the court. The hearing became more contentious when Reddington questioned information the juror supplied during jury selection and sought to discuss alleged prior criminal or court matters.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
