Massachusetts judge sets March for new trial in Lindsay Clancy case

Judge William Sullivan indicated on Monday that a new trial for Lindsay Clancy could begin in March 2027. The judge presided over a hearing regarding the defense's motion to dismiss the case on double jeopardy grounds. The court has not yet ruled on that motion, but Sullivan noted that a retry depends on how he resolves several pending legal requests.

Clancy, 36, faces charges for the 2023 deaths of her three young children. She has not denied killing the children, but her legal team argues she suffered from postpartum psychosis and could not control her behavior. The Commonwealth argues she acted deliberately and understood her actions were wrong. The initial trial ended in September when the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington spent much of the Monday hearing questioning the conduct of one juror, Michael Desronvil. Reddington suggested the juror used a cell phone to research case terms and may have failed to disclose prior criminal history during selection. Sullivan interrupted Reddington when the attorney publicly named the juror and discussed potentially confidential information. Sullivan asked the attorneys to lower their voices and later called them to a sidebar conference.

Another defense lawyer, Martin G. Weinberg, argued that Sullivan should have investigated the jury foreman more thoroughly after the foreman sent two notes about a juror breaking the rules. Weinberg claimed a deeper inquiry could have revealed grounds to excuse Desronvil and continue deliberations. Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague countered that Sullivan handled the situation properly and that pressing the foreman further would have allowed the court to interpret the jury's private discussions. Sprague told Sullivan, 'You were the one who looked them in the eyes.. and you credited their responses.'

The prosecution maintains that the double jeopardy clause does not prevent the state from seeking justice for the three victims. They argue that the foreman's notes did not cite personal bias or outside matters, so investigating Desronvil would have been an improper intrusion. Desronvil's attorney, Heather O'Connor, stated that the defense accepted the opportunity to question the juror before the trial started and only challenged his credibility after he became the sole dissenter. O'Connor said, 'We are here because juror Doe did not vote the way the defense needed.'

The court also heard arguments on a gag order requested by prosecutors. The request aims to limit public statements by attorneys and their supporters to protect future proceedings. Reddington has given frequent interviews and press conferences during the trial, while the prosecution avoided media contact. The defense opposes the order as an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech, noting that no new trial date has been set yet. Sullivan scheduled a follow-up hearing for November 16 to address these issues.

Sullivan did not issue a ruling on the dismissal motion during the Monday session. Prosecutors said they intend to retry Clancy if the case proceeds but have not decided whether to file the same first-degree murder charges. The next step in the legal process is the November 16 hearing, where the judge will review the pending motions and the gag order request.