Defense Seeks to Block Retrial in Massachusetts Murder Case
A Massachusetts judge will hear arguments on Monday over whether double jeopardy bars a retrial for Lindsay Clancy, accused of killing her three children.
Lindsay Clancy, charged with the 2023 killings of her three children, is scheduled for a hearing on Monday to determine if a retrial can proceed. Her attorneys argue that the doctrine of double jeopardy applies because the prior mistrial did not meet the "manifest necessity" standard required for a new trial.
Defense lawyer Martin Weinberg told the court that a voir dire of the holdout juror could have revealed personal reasons for the juror’s refusal to deliberate, which might have allowed the juror to be discharged and the deliberations to continue. He said this alternative would satisfy the manifest necessity requirement.
Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague responded that the judge must assess manifest necessity based on the record and information available at the time of the mistrial, not on later media reports. She emphasized that the juror had refused to agree, not that he refused to deliberate.
The prosecution has asked the judge to reject the defense’s motion to dismiss the charges, asserting the state’s interest in seeking justice for the three children. Prosecutors also plan to file a motion barring attorneys and law-enforcement personnel from speaking to the media.
If the court permits a retrial, the defense may seek reduced charges to allow a bench trial instead of another jury trial. Attorney Kevin Reddington indicated readiness to begin a new trial and, after the mistrial, requested a presidential pardon for Clancy, noting that a pardon would apply only to federal offenses.
Clancy is accused of strangling her children, Cora (5), Dawson (3) and Callan (8 months), with exercise bands before attempting suicide, which left her paralyzed. During the first trial, her counsel argued she suffered postpartum psychosis and acted under auditory hallucinations, while prosecutors maintained she acted with awareness and pre-planning.
The original jury deadlocked three times, prompting Judge William Sullivan to declare a mistrial. One juror, identified as Michael P. Desronvil, was reported as the sole holdout, claiming he had no doubts about the verdict. The defense intends to preserve juror records and investigate the circumstances surrounding the holdout.
The case has attracted extensive public attention, including speculation about the involvement of Clancy’s former husband, Patrick Clancy. His attorneys have denied the allegations and warned of legal action against creators of such theories.