Judge orders second murder trial for Lindsay Clancy

Judge William Sullivan of Plymouth County has ordered a new trial for Lindsay Clancy, the woman charged with strangling her three children in their Duxbury home. The ruling, issued on Monday, rejects the defense's argument that the case should be dismissed entirely. Sullivan determined that retrying Clancy would not unconstitutionally subject her to double prosecution for the same crime.

The first attempt to try Clancy ended on September 4 in a declared mistrial. The jury reported that one holdout juror prevented the group from reaching a unanimous verdict. Sullivan's decision clears the path for a second trial, which could begin as early as March 2027. A hearing is already scheduled for November 16 to set the specific timeline for that proceeding.

Clancy's legal team argued that forcing a retrial violated her Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy. They contended that Sullivan acted too quickly in declaring the mistrial and that the step was not manifestly necessary. Defense lawyers pointed to jury notes claiming the holdout was not following the law on reasonable doubt despite specific instructions from the judge. They suggested the judge should have questioned the juror or removed them from the panel instead of ending the trial.

Sullivan disagreed with that assessment. In his written decision, he noted that the jury notes indicated a disagreement among jurors rather than an explicit refusal by the holdout to follow the law. He wrote that questioning the holdout during deliberations would have been impermissibly coercive. Sullivan concluded that a manifest necessity existed for a retrial due to the jury deadlock. He also declined to conduct a limited inquiry into the holdout juror, stating there was no point in examining the juror under oath at this stage.

Martin Weinberg, one of Clancy's lawyers, said the defense anticipates pursuing an appeal following the ruling. A spokesperson for Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz did not respond to requests for comment on the decision. The case centers on events from January 24, 2023, in the basement of the family's home. Clancy strangled her five-year-old daughter Cora, three-year-old son Dawson, and eight-month-old son Callan using exercise bands.

After the killings, Clancy cut herself with a knife and jumped from a second-story window in an attempt to end her own life. The fall left her paralyzed. No one at the initial trial disputed these facts. The defense has consistently argued that Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time. They contend she should be found not guilty by reason of insanity, a standard known in Massachusetts as lack of criminal responsibility.

Some jurors from the first trial stated in televised interviews that they had been prepared to render a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity if not for the single holdout. The stakes of the upcoming trial are defined by the potential outcomes. A verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity would result in Clancy being committed to a state psychiatric hospital, subject to regular court review. In contrast, a conviction on first-degree murder charges carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole in Massachusetts.