Lindsay Clancy denied bid for not guilty finding by judge after mistrial

A Massachusetts judge has rejected a bid by Lindsay Clancy's defence lawyer to have her found not guilty of murdering her three young children, weeks after her high-profile trial ended in a hung jury.

Judge William Sullivan denied the motion on Thursday, ruling that prosecutors had presented enough evidence during the trial for a jury to potentially convict the 36-year-old mother. The decision is the fourth time the judge has rejected attempts by Clancy’s defence team to get the charges dismissed.

Why the judge rejected the acquittal bid

"There was evidence introduced, both physical and circumstantial, that would permit a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the charge of murder," Judge Sullivan wrote in his decision.

He also dismissed the defence's argument that the state had failed to prove Clancy was in a fit mental state to be held criminally responsible for her actions. "Mental illness alone does not preclude a finding of criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt," the judge added.

Clancy is accused of strangling her five-year-old daughter Cora, her three-year-old son Dawson, and her eight-month-old son Callan with exercise bands at the family home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in January 2023.

What happened at the trial

Her lawyer, Kevin Reddington, argued in court on Tuesday that the prosecution’s case was built entirely on speculation and lacked direct proof that she committed the acts. He has maintained that Clancy was suffering from severe post-partum psychosis at the time and was acting on voices in her head that commanded her to kill the children and herself.

Prosecutors countered that Clancy planned the killings coldly and deliberately, pointing to her calm demeanour and her actions immediately before and after the children were killed.

The ruling follows a dramatic six-week trial that ended in a mistrial on 4 September. After seven days of deliberations, the jury of nine women and three men told the court three times that they could not reach a unanimous verdict.

Some jurors later revealed that 11 of them wanted to find Clancy not criminally responsible by reason of insanity, with only a single holdout juror wanting to convict her.

What happens next

While prosecutors have not yet announced whether they intend to seek a retrial, Clancy is due back in court on 2 November.

That hearing will address a pending double jeopardy motion filed by the defence, alongside a request from Reddington to launch an inquiry into the conduct of the single holdout juror.