Defense seeks rare judicial ruling after mistrial in Lindsay Clancy murder case

Defense lawyer Kevin Reddington told a Massachusetts court on Friday that he will ask Judge William Sullivan to set aside the deadlocked jury verdict in the trial of Lindsay Clancy and rule that she is not criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children. If granted, the motion would prevent a second trial and any subsequent conviction.

Boston attorney Peter Elikann, who is not involved in the case, said such a 25(b)(2) motion is "rare to the extreme" and noted that judges rarely grant it, adding that it would only succeed if the jury’s decision were shown to be completely unsupported by evidence.

The 12-person jury deliberated for more than 38 hours over seven days and sent three notes indicating a deadlock before the judge declared a mistrial. Reddington attempted an emergency appeal based on a note from the foreperson alleging a juror was not following the law on reasonable doubt, but the appeal was rejected and the mistrial stood.

Prosecutor Timothy Cruz declined to comment on the district attorney’s next move, which could include retrying the case on the same charges, seeking a plea deal, reducing charges, or dismissing the case. A new trial date may be set at a hearing later this month, with the earliest possible schedule in late fall.

During the original trial, Reddington argued that Clancy, a former labor-and-delivery nurse, acted under temporary insanity due to severe postpartum psychosis and auditory hallucinations. Prosecutors contended she planned the killings and was lucid enough to carry them out. Clancy remains hospitalized at Tewksbury Hospital, where she is paraplegic after a suicide attempt.

If found not guilty by reason of insanity in a future trial, Clancy would be committed to a mental health facility until deemed no longer a risk. A first-degree murder conviction would result in life imprisonment without parole.