▶ Watch Video: Lindsay Clancy prosecution say it plans on second trial
Prosecutors in Lindsay Clancy’s case said Monday they plan to have her stand trial a second time for the murders of her three children, with the judge leaning toward a possible March retrial. What isn’t known yet is what charges Clancy would face.
In her first trial, Clancy’s attorney admitted she killed 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan in their Duxbury home on Jan. 24, 2023, but she pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington said Clancy was not criminally responsible because she was overmedicated and suffering from postpartum psychosis.
Prosecutors said Clancy knew right from wrong and planned to strangle her children. The trial ended with a hung jury on Sept. 4.
At a hearing later in September, Reddington then argued that there’s “no evidence” Clancy admitted to killing her children. However, in a civil lawsuit, Clancy’s lawyers say she admitted to killing them.
Will Lindsay Clancy stand trial again?
At a hearing in Plymouth Superior Court Monday, prosecutor Jennifer Sprague said for the first time that Clancy will likely stand trial again, though it is not yet known what she would be charged with.
“This would be a retrial,” Sprague said, adding that the prosecution has not yet decided “how that will look.”
Sprague told Judge William Sullivan she did not want to set a trial date until he ruled on outstanding motions in the case.
Reddington took issue with the delay and said he wants to know what charges his client will face. The defense attorney said that the “elephant in the room” is Sullivan’s approaching retirement. Reddington said he wants Sullivan to be the trial judge.
“Why do we not know if the next trial is going to be murder in the first degree or a lesser charge or no charge?” Reddington said, saying the prosecution should not have to wait for rulings to make a decision on charges. “They don’t need to wait for that to determine if they’re going to take a run on her again on first-degree. I have to know logistically if it’s going to be triple homicide first-degree, or something else.”
If prosecutors decide to retry Clancy on lesser second-degree murder charges, she would then have the option to decide between a jury trial or a judge deciding her fate.
“I am not going to have this woman sit incarcerated for the next year, or two, or three. I want a trial. And I want it with you, and I want it this spring,” Reddington said.
Sullivan said he is leaning toward March as a realistic date for a second trial. That will be discussed during the next hearing in the case in two weeks on Nov. 16.
Gag order proposed in Lindsay Clancy trial
Earlier, Sprague argued for the government’s motion for a gag order in the case.
She said Reddington has made “calculated” public statements that could impact the public’s perception of the case and thus taint the jury pool for a potential retrial.
Sprague said moving the location of the trial wouldn’t be an option if the jury pool is tainted because “Where could we go where someone hasn’t heard of this case?”
Sprague added that the prosecution has not made any inflammatory statements outside of court, and has instead only offered “no comment” responses.
“I am not looking for 15 minutes of fame in this case. What the Commonwealth wants in this case is justice for Cora, Dawson, and Callan,” Sprague said.
Laura McConnell argued in opposition of the gag order for the defense.
“This is not a case where attorney Reddington has been litigating the case to the public through the media,” McConnell said.
McConnell said that because Clancy herself has not given interviews, Reddington serves as her voice and a gag order would take that right away.
Sullivan took the matter under advisement and did not make a ruling during Monday’s 3-hour hearing.
Kevin Reddington has heated exchange with judge
Reddington argued on Clancy’s behalf on a motion to preserve records related to the holdout juror, referred to in court as “Juror Doe.”
“When you have jurors, you expect that jurors are going to be honest in their disclosure to the court about their background,” he said.
During his argument, Reddington referred to the juror by name. Judge Sullivan interrupted and that led to a heated exchange.
“I’m going to stop you right there,” Sullivan said.
“No. You’re not going to stop me,” Reddington responded.
“I am,” Sullivan said. “Because there’s no need to bring out that juror’s name.”
Reddington argued that the juror’s name is “all over the internet,” since he has given interviews. He told the judge that the holdout juror has “got more face time than I do.”
Reddington alleged that the holdout juror was scrolling on his phone during deliberations, and also said that “I have evidence that this man was not honest” on his jury form.
According to Reddington, the holdout juror did not disclose that he had an abuse prevention order against him. Reddington also said he did not disclose a 2021 arrest.
Sprague asked to offer evidence at sidebar related to the 2021 arrest, and attorneys went to speak with the judge in private.
After the sidebar, Sprague asked for the motion to be denied “on its face.” She said allowing the motion would be “potentially opening the door” into examining all jurors’ actions and statements.
Should holdout juror in Lindsay Clancy trial be investigated?
Heather O’Connor, an attorney for the holdout juror, then addressed the court over the motion to preserve Juror Doe’s records.
O’Connor said that before Juror Doe was added to the jury, the defense had the opportunity to question him, but only asked him two questions and then declared they were content he could serve.
She also told the court that notes to the judge from the jury during deliberations did not include any complaint of outside information, inappropriate phone use or refusal to deliberate. O’Connor said the only one who accused the juror of misconduct before the mistrial was the defense.
“A disagreement in the jury room had become, in the defense’s telling, a juror who lied to the court under oath,” she said.
“We are here because Juror Doe did not vote the way the defense needed. So after the mistrial, the defense went looking into the one juror who stood between them and the outcome they wanted,” O’Connor said. “The defense relies on television and podcast interviews after jurors saw what the public and the defense had to say about this case. And the defense wants to put only one juror under investigation, search only one phone, pull only one criminal history – the one who disagreed.”
O’Connor argued that a phone “holds the most private information a person has.” She said that the allegation that Juror Doe was looking at his phone is not the same as accusing him of using the phone to research the case.
“If the allegation of just looking at a phone was enough, every juror’s phone in almost every case would be open to search. The only thing that changed what anyone knew about Juror Doe at the time the mistrial was declared was the vote,” O’Connor said. “If that’s enough to put a juror under oath, to search their phone, to pull their history, then the lesson to every future juror in this commonwealth is simple. Agree with the majority, or potentially be investigated.”
Judge Sullivan did not rule Monday on the motion related to the holdout juror.
Lindsay Clancy in court today
Clancy’s trial ended with a hung jury back on Sept. 4. Eleven jurors favored a not guilty verdict while one holdout juror believed she was guilty.
The hearing Monday began with Martin Weinberg arguing on Clancy’s behalf on the issue of double jeopardy.
Weinberg argued that two notes from the jury “cried out on behalf of the foreperson.”
He argued that at minimum, the notes should have required questioning of jurors to find if the holdout juror was deliberating in good faith.
Judge Sullivan pushed back, asking Weinberg, “Didn’t I do that? Didn’t I do a voir dire? Didn’t I swear the jurors in? Didn’t I ask each one? And the concerns of coercion is something I have to worry about. Are you saying I should have done it a second time?”
“A probing voir dire could have disclosed that the 12th juror was not following instructions,” Weinberg argued.
Sprague argued that the note from the jury that the holdout juror was not following reasonable instruction was “basically their opinion.”
Sprague also argued that there was no allegation in the notes of a lack of impartiality. She added that any post-trial reports about jurors are “completely irrelevant.”
“It is clear from the record that this juror did not refuse to deliberate. He refused to agree,” Sprague said.
Judge Sullivan did not rule and took the matter under advisement.
Lindsay Clancy remains on suicide watch
Lindsay Clancy’s civil attorney, Rosemary Scapicchio, is pursuing a lawsuit against Clancy’s former doctors, claiming they ignored her pleas for help and contributed to the deaths of her children. That case likely won’t move forward until the criminal charges are resolved.
Scapicchio spoke to CBS Mornings in an interview ahead of Monday’s hearing.
“She has to live every day with the understanding that she hurt her children and sometimes I don’t know how she gets out of bed in the morning, but she manages to get through the day and she manages to be able to sit through the trial in the way in which she did, but she’s on suicide watch. She’s still on a suicide watch and if given the opportunity, I have no doubt in my mind at all that she would take her own life,” Scapicchio said.
Clancy remains in custody at Tewksbury State Hospital under psychiatric care. She’s paralyzed and in a wheelchair after jumping out of a window the night her children were killed.
If you or someone you know is in emotional distress or a suicidal crisis, you can reach the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by calling or texting 988. You can also chat with the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline here.
For more information about mental health care resources and support, the National Alliance on Mental Illness HelpLine can be reached Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. ET, at 1-800-950-NAMI (6264) or email info@nami.org.
