Lindsay Clancy hearing takeaways: Retrial news, surprising defense strategy - USA Today

PLYMOUTH, MA − Lindsay Clancy's case returned to a Massachusetts courtroom Tuesday for a brief hearing that left the future of her case uncertain.

The court date follows a high-profile mistrial in early September and a flurry of legal maneuverings by her defense team. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington argued Sept. 29 that prosecutors failed to prove that Clancy killed her three young children and urged the court to find her not guilty. Reddington called the investigation into the killings "ridiculous" and the evidence "woefully deficient."

"Where's the evidence that she did this?" Reddington said.

Arguing for the prosecution, Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham opposed Reddington's motion and called the argument that Clancy didn't kill her children "laughable." Prosecutors have not yet said whether they intend to retry Clancy for first-degree murder, lower the charges or drop the case altogether and a spokesperson for the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office declined to confirm whether Clancy will face first-degree murder charges moving forward.

Both sides declined to set a date for a potential retrial as they await Judge William Sullivan's ruling on several defense motions. Clancy's defense team has also filed a motion to dismiss the charges against her altogether and launch an investigation into the holdout juror, whose attorney told reporters outside the courthouse that her client wants “privacy” and “justice” for the Clancy children.

Prosecutors alleged Clancy, 36, deliberately sent her husband out on errands and then strangled her three children - Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months - with exercise bands in the basement of their Duxbury, Massachusetts home while he was gone. Clancy's attorney Kevin Reddington did not deny that she killed her children in January 2023, but argued she can't be held criminally responsible, Massachusetts' version of the insanity defense, because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time of the killings.

After more than 38 hours of deliberations, the jury remained deadlocked 11 to 1, and Clancy's closely watched triple murder trial ended with a mistrial on Sept. 4. Sullivan ordered both sides to return to court on Nov. 2 to hear arguments on more defense motions and set a retrial date.

Though Clancy's defense team has filed multiple motions since the mistrial, Sullivan heard arguments on just two of those issues on Sept. 29.

The first was a defense motion for the court to find Clancy not guilty. Reddington argued the prosecution failed to prove both that she killed her children and that she should be held criminally responsible for doing so. Prosecutor Shanan Buckingham said that at trial the defense acknowledged Clancy committed the killings and this is the first time Reddington has challenged this.

Reddington appeared to acknowledge the change, suggesting that he tried to address the issue during trial but was "put in a conundrum where you have to in effect admit culpability, if you will, to raise the issue of lack of criminal responsibility."

Buckingham countered that there was "voluminous" evidence presented indicating Clancy was guilty, had a motive and was not showing signs of psychosis at the time of the killings.

Sullivan also heard arguments from both sides on a defense motion to unseal sidebar records from Sept. 2, 3 and 4 and the notes from the jury with identifying information redacted. The defense argued the records could bolster their separate motion to dismiss the charges against Clancy, but prosecutor Jennifer Sprague contended that unsealing the documents would tamper with the "sanctity of the juror system."

Sullivan took both motions under advisement but did not rule on either issue on Sept. 29. The judge ordered both sides to return to court on Nov. 2 to argue over more motions and set a trial date, though he said doing so does not indicate how he'll rule on any of the motions.

If the judge were to find Clancy not guilty, she could not be retried. If the judge allows the motion to dismiss, the district attorney can't bring charges again.

Reddington told reporters he thought it went "very well" inside the courtroom today. He also rebuked prosecutors' proposed gag order, noting that the holdout juror has spoken to the media several times.

"I am really tired of reading that I am attacking this juror, I am ripping this juror, I am shredding the juror, I'm not doing anything to this juror, " he said.

He also declined to say whether he has spoken to Cruz about a possible plea deal.

Sullivan pressed the parties to set a trial date. Both the defense and prosecution objected to scheduling a trial before Sullivan issued his rulings. Sullivan urged both sides to be ready to set a trial date at Clancy's next hearing on Nov. 2.

"I don't want this thing to then just start to kind of get kicked down the road, punted, go forward," Sullivan said.

"It's not going to get punted, but I'll tell you right now I can't do a trial before June," Reddington responded.

Arguing for the prosecution, Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham described Reddington's suggestion that Clancy didn't commit the killings as "a laughable argument."

"I'd suggest to you that the entire record is voluminous as to the information supporting the fact that she did this," Buckingham said.

The prosecution presented evidence showing that Clancy sent her husband, Patrick Clancy, out on errands, who returned home to find the children in the basement with exercise bands around their necks. Clancy spoke to a hospital chaplain about hallucinations commanding her to kill the children, Buckingham added, noting also DNA on the exercise band attributable to Lindsay Clancy.

Buckingham countered Reddington's contention that Clancy wasn't criminally responsible, saying that while Clancy showed signs of serious mental illness in the months preceding Jan. 24, 2023, she also showed capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct and conform her conduct to the requirements of the law.

"A defendant who has a mental illness can commit crimes and can be criminally responsible," she said.

Sullivan took the motion under advisement after hearing arguments from both sides.

Reddington began Tuesday's hearing by urging the court to enter a required finding that Clancy is not guilty because prosecutors did not prove their case.

Reddington said the prosecution failed to prove both that Clancy killed her children and that she should be held criminally responsible for doing so. Reddington said the "ridiculous" investigation made missteps and found no evidence that she committed the crime.

"In this case, there was no investigation," Reddington said. "They just immediately assumed this woman was guilty."

Reddington attacked the prosecution's timeline, saying that Clancy did not have time to commit the acts she's accused of. Prosecutors alleged that Clancy killed her children, cut her neck and wrists and then threw herself out of a window in the short period while her husband was out running errands. But Clancy's core body temperature went down to 82 degrees, Reddington said, which would take two hours of exposure outside.

Expert witness Dr. Elizabeth Laposata, a forensic pathologist, testified during the trial that the thoracic spinal cord injury made Clancy unable to regulate body temperature in the lower half of her body, which contributed to severe hypothermia. She said Clancy's body temperature dropped rapidly as she lay on the hard, frozen ground with wet clothing on. The air temperature was around 32 degrees at the time, Laposata said.

Reddington also said that when Clancy came out of a coma at the hospital following her suicide attempt, she was told what happened.

"There's no evidence that she admitted that she did this," Reddington said.

Reddington next argued that the prosecution failed to prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt. He said the prosecution's rebuttal witnesses were not qualified to testify about her mental state.

Clancy's attorney Kevin Reddington was more tight-lipped with the media than usual as he made his way into the courthouse before 9 a.m.

While Clancy's attorney openly and regularly spoke to the media during the trial and in the weeks since, prosecutors filed a motion early on Sept. 29 pushing for a judge to limit his comments on the case.

Minutes before Reddington's arrival, Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz walked in and similarly did not comment on the case to the media.

Inside the courthouse, a heavy media presence packed the courtroom. Members of the public filled the remaining benches, many wore pink in support of Lindsay Clancy.

Prosecutors Jennifer Sprague and Shanan Buckingham were present, as is Marty Weinberg, who has joined the defense team. Weinberg represented Karen Read before the Supreme Judicial Court.

Prosecutors filed two motions ahead of Tuesday's court hearing, including a gag order prohibiting all counsel from speaking to media in a way that would "have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the criminal proceedings."

This includes making public statements to the press about the deliberative process or identity of any discharged juror, disclosing any non-public information, or commenting on the character or alleged conduct of any party, witness, or discharged juror.

Prosecutors Shanan Buckingham and Jennifer Sprague cited defense attorney Kevin Reddington's repeated comments to the press over the course of the trial.

"Throughout the course of pretrial litigation, defense counsel responded to media inquiries and participated in press conferences," the motion says. "During the course of several weeks of trial, defense counsel fielded questions from a growing assemblage of spectators, news media correspondents and internet bloggers outside the doors of the courthouse each and every day following the conclusion of the court day."

The prosecutors said any further comments by attorneys to media could taint a new jury pool, should a retrial be declared.

"Under the caselaw and ethical rules, limitations on lawyer's speech is aimed at two principal evils: comments that are likely to influence the actual outcome of the trial and comments that are likely to prejudice the jury venire," the prosecutors wrote.

A venire is the whole list of possible jurors, according to the American Bar Association.

Few members of the public who appear to be supporters of Lindsay Clancy remained outside Plymouth Superior Court after 9 a.m. While some dressed in pink went inside for a chance at a closer view of the proceedings, others braved the cool temperatures and drizzly conditions as the hearing was expected to begin.

Julie Slodden, from South Shore, Massachusetts, was among those who came to support Clancy. Slodden said the case is important to her because she also suffered from postpartum depression.

“I just think that women these days need to speak up and rally together and show support for other women,” Slodden said.

Christine Daiute came to the courthouse to support Clancy for the second time. Contrary to what prosecutors have said, Daiute, also from South Shore, said she believes the case is about women’s mental health.

“I think that this is a travesty,” she said. “I watched the whole trial, and I do not think that there is any evidence to support the prosecution’s case.”

Following the mistrial, Clancy's defense team filed three motions: one calling for "a required finding of not guilty," one calling for the murder charges to be dismissed altogether, citing double jeopardy concerns and another seeking more information about the holdout juror in the case.

Reddington filed a renewed motion asking the court to find Clancy not guilty on Sept. 10, according to court records, arguing that the prosecution's evidence did not sufficiently prove Clancy understood what she did was wrong despite her serious mental illness. This motion has been denied once by Judge William Sullivan.

On Sept. 21, Clancy's defense team filed another motion arguing the charges against her should be dismissed because the court failed to investigate the message from the jury that one juror wasn't following the judge's instructions on reasonable doubt during deliberations. "Accordingly, any successive trial would constitute a violation of Ms. Clancy's Double Jeopardy rights," the motion said.

Another motion filed by Reddington requested the holdout juror's phone, phone records and confidential questionnaire, among other records. Reddington also asked the court to question the juror about the truthfulness of the questionnaire and his answers during voir dire, a "sworn assurance" from Sept. 3, and the use of a cell phone or receipt of outside information during deliberations.

In his first on-camera remarks, the holdout juror, who identified himself as Michael Peguy Desronvil, thanked members of the public for their support.

"I know the whole focus has been on me, but we want to reel everything back and put the focus on the three angels that's at hand, the ones that can't speak for themselves, the ones that can't defend themselves, and the one that can't fight the battles. And those are Cora, Dawson, and Callan," Desronvil said in a video aired on Fox News Channel's "Hannity" on Sept. 28.

Desronvil previously released a statement through his attorney, Edward Paltzik, disputing his fellow jurors' accounts that he would not apply the legal standard of reasonable doubt. In an interview with Fox News Channel host Kayleigh McEnany that aired Sept. 28, Paltzik reiterated that Desronvil had "zero doubt" that Clancy should have been found guilty, and said he had a "mountain of evidence" to support his position.

Plymouth District Attorney Tim Cruz has not yet said whether he intends to retry Clancy in front of a new jury, but legal observers and Clancy's defense lawyer have said it's unlikely he'll drop the case. After the mistrial was declared on Sept. 4, Cruz told reporters he would not make a decision about a retrial that day, but said the first-degree murder charges "were warranted and appropriate in these circumstances."

"The facts are Lindsay Clancy killed her three children and the evidence suggested to us that she was in control of her actions when she committed those homicides," he said.