Clancy returns to court Monday in fight over retrial
Defense attorneys challenge the mistrial ruling while prosecutors seek a new gag order to manage media coverage.
By Jonathan Hoffmann ·
Lindsay Clancy appears in a Massachusetts courtroom on Monday morning at 9:00 a.m. to argue two distinct legal issues that determine the path forward in her murder case. The judge must decide if the state can retry the Connecticut woman after her first trial ended in a deadlock. This hearing follows the conclusion of a six-week proceeding in the summer where the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict.
The case involves charges of three counts of first-degree murder for the strangulation of Clancy's three children. Prosecutors allege the deaths occurred in the basement of the family home in 2023. The defense contends Clancy is not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury spent weeks deliberating but failed to agree on whether she bore criminal responsibility for the deaths.
The jury deadlocked 11 to 1 in favor of acquitting Clancy by reason of insanity. One juror, identified as Michael P. Desronvil, held out against the verdict. During deliberations, fellow jurors sent notes to Judge William Sullivan. They stated Desronvil was unable to follow instructions on reasonable doubt and made statements acknowledging that doubt. The panel claimed he refused to apply that doubt to the verdict as the law requires.
Clancy's attorney Kevin Reddington requested that Sullivan question Desronvil further. The court denied those arguments, and the trial ended with a mistrial. Desronvil has since stated he did not have doubts about Clancy's guilt. He said other jurors kept cutting him off during discussions. The defense argues the judge should have removed the juror instead of declaring a mistrial.
Defense lawyers are asking Sullivan to dismiss the charges on double jeopardy grounds. They contend the mistrial did not meet the standard of manifest necessity. They believe a further inquiry into the holdout juror would have avoided the need for a new trial. Prosecutors counter that double jeopardy does not apply. They maintain Sullivan declared a mistrial only as a last resort.
The state is also seeking a new gag order to limit public statements by the defense. Assistant District Attorneys Jennifer Sprague and Shanan Buckingham filed the motion in late September. They cited a circus atmosphere that surrounded the summer trial. The motion notes that Reddington conducted national news interviews and called on President Donald Trump to intervene. Prosecutors argue these actions tainted the pool of potential jurors for any future trial.
Laura B. McConnell, another lawyer for Clancy, responded in a court filing. She stated there is no evidence that prospective jurors were affected by Reddington's comments. McConnell noted that no new trial has been scheduled yet. She wrote that the harm the government fears is purely speculative. The court will review these competing arguments during Monday's session.
