Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said Tuesday that his office has not yet decided whether there will be another trial for Lindsay Clancy.
“ We’re doing a very thorough review right now, and we’re going to continue to do our job to make sure that we do what’s best for the interests of justice,” Cruz said outside the courthouse after a hearing.
Tuesday was Clancy’s first appearance in court since her case ended in a mistrial more than three weeks ago. The jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on whether she should be held criminally responsible for killing her three children in their Duxbury home in 2023.
The judge in the case, William Sullivan, is considering several motions, including one from Clancy’s attorney asking that she be found not guilty before any retrial. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington argued during the trial for what’s known as the insanity defense.
Speaking at Tuesday’s hearing, he said prosecutors had not proven that Clancy killed the three children, let alone that she was mentally competent to face first-degree murder charges.
“This entire case is based on speculation,” Reddington said in court.
Reddington’s request, known as a Rule 25 motion, is a legal filing that allows the defense to ask a judge to enter a not guilty finding, arguing that prosecutors did not provide sufficient evidence for a jury to convict. Such motions are typically filed in criminal cases but are rarely successful.
Prosecutors opposed the motion, citing “voluminous” evidence that Clancy strangled her three children in the basement of the family’s home. They have repeatedly argued that Clancy was mentally well enough to deliberately plan to kill her children and then try to end her own life.
A separate motion from prosecutors asked the judge to limit defense attorneys’ comments to the media. They argued that Reddington’s statements during and after the trial could prejudice the case and deter potential jurors if there is another trial.
The “most disturbing,” according to the motion, were Reddington’s comments about a particular juror who is said to have had doubt about Clancy’s mental state, but would not vote with the other 11 jurors to find her not criminally responsible.
After the hearing, Reddington said he does “not need any gag orders” and he is not responsible for the publicity surrounding the “holdout juror,” identified by his attorney as Michael Peguy Desronvil.
“I am really tired of reading that I am attacking this juror, ripping this juror, shredding this juror,” Reddington said to reporters outside the courthouse. “I am not doing anything with the juror.”
Attorney Martin Weinberg appeared alongside Reddington to represent Clancy at Tuesday’s hearing. Weinberg filed a motion seeking to dismiss the case on double jeopardy grounds. He argued that the judge should not have declared mistrial, and said a new trial would violate Clancy’s constitutional rights. Sullivan also took that motion under advisement.
Dozens of people, many wearing pink to signify support for Clancy, lined up early at the Plymouth courthouse for the hearing, expecting some type of decision about how the case might move forward. But they were disappointed.
With both sides requesting more time, Sullivan scheduled the next court date for Nov. 2 to hear arguments on the motions and then — perhaps — set a date for another trial.