Judge to rule on double jeopardy motion in Lindsay Clancy retrial

Judge William Sullivan on Monday took under advisement a defense motion to dismiss the murder charges against Lindsay Clancy.

The hearing marked the second court appearance for the 36-year-old mother since her September trial ended in a deadlocked jury. The defense filed the motion on double jeopardy grounds, arguing that the initial trial concluded without a verdict and that the state cannot retry her without addressing specific procedural failures.

Defense attorney Martin G. Weinberg contended that Sullivan failed to investigate further after the jury foreperson sent two notes indicating a juror was breaking rules. Weinberg argued that additional questioning could have identified grounds to remove the holdout juror, Michael Desronvil, thereby avoiding the mistrial. "That's what the foreperson was asking the court to do," Weinberg said.

Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague countered that Sullivan struck the correct balance by speaking with each juror and confirming they could apply the law. She argued that pressing the foreperson further would have inserted the court's interpretation into the private deliberations. "You were the one who looked them in the eyes and asked them the questions and was in the best position to judge their credibility," Sprague told the judge.

Clancy has not disputed killing her three children in 2023, but her legal team argues she suffered from postpartum psychosis that prevented her from controlling her behavior. Prosecutors acknowledge Clancy had mental health issues but maintain she acted deliberately and knew her actions were wrong.

Tensions rose during the session when defense attorney Kevin Reddington publicly named Desronvil and alleged the juror used a cellphone to research case terms. Reddington also questioned the juror's truthfulness during selection regarding his criminal history, calling it a fatal infection of his integrity. Sullivan intervened repeatedly, telling the attorneys to dial it back after prosecutors objected to the use of potentially confidential information.

The court also considered a Commonwealth motion for a gag order. Prosecutors seek to bar attorneys and supporters from making extrajudicial statements that could materially prejudice the proceeding. Reddington has held daily walking news conferences since the mistrial, while prosecutors have remained silent to the press.

Laura McConnell, an attorney for Clancy, wrote that the gag order amounts to prior restraint because no trial date is set and no jury is currently impaneled. "The government bears a heavy burden to justify such an order," McConnell stated.