Lindsay Clancy seeks dismissal of murder charges after jury deadlock

Lindsay Clancy’s lawyers asked a Massachusetts judge on Monday, November 2, to dismiss the first-degree murder charges she faces over the deaths of her three young children, arguing that putting her on trial again would violate her constitutional rights. Her previous trial ended in September without a verdict after jurors failed to agree.

Prosecutors said they plan to retry Clancy if the proceedings continue, although they have not determined whether they would pursue the same first-degree murder charges. Judge William Sullivan did not immediately decide the dismissal request. He set a further hearing for November 16 and indicated that a new trial could start in March.

Clancy, now 36, has not disputed that she strangled her children with exercise bands at the family’s home in Duxbury, a Boston suburb, in 2023. Afterward, she attempted suicide by cutting herself with a knife and jumping from a second-floor window. The fall left her paralysed.

The defence has argued that Clancy was experiencing postpartum psychosis and could not control her behaviour. Prosecutors have acknowledged her mental health problems but maintain that she acted deliberately and knew her actions were wrong. Monday marked her second court appearance since the jury deadlocked.

At the hearing, defence lawyer Martin G Weinberg challenged Sullivan’s response to two notes from the jury foreperson reporting that a juror was not following the rules. Weinberg said additional questioning might have established a basis for removing that juror, Michael Desronvil, allowing deliberations to proceed.

Sullivan had spoken to every juror after receiving the notes, reminded them of their responsibilities and explained reasonable doubt. Each said they could apply the law. Weinberg argued that those assurances were insufficient because a juror might not have answered truthfully. He said the judge should also have questioned the foreperson separately about what was occurring during deliberations.

Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague countered that there was no indication the holdout’s position reflected personal bias or an inability to deliberate, rather than a different view of the evidence. She argued that further questioning could have intruded on deliberations. “It is clear from the record this juror did not refuse to deliberate,” she said. “He refused to agree.”

Defence lawyer Kevin Reddington also accused the lone holdout of researching terms connected to the case on a mobile phone and questioned whether he had answered truthfully during jury selection. Another pending issue is Massachusetts’s request for a gag order restricting statements to the media by lawyers and their supporters when those statements would carry a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the criminal proceedings.