Lawyers for Massachusetts mother who killed children argue new trial would violate double jeopardy rules
Lindsay Clancy returned to court on Monday in an attempt to dismiss the charges that she murdered her three young children.
The hearing Monday was the second time the Massachusetts mother has been in court since her trial ended with a deadlocked jury in September after jurors were unable to agree on a verdict.
Clancy has never disputed killing her three young children in 2023, but her lawyer has argued she had postpartum psychosis and was unable to control her behavior. Prosecutors have acknowledged that the 36-year-old Clancy had mental health problems but said she acted deliberately and understood her actions were wrong.
The focus of the hearing in front of Judge William Sullivan was a motion from the defense to dismiss the charges on double jeopardy grounds.
At Monday’s hearing, defense attorney Martin G Weinberg argued that Sullivan should have investigated further after the jury foreperson sent two notes indicating that a juror was not following the rules. Further questioning could have revealed grounds to remove the lone holdout juror, Michael Desronvil, and continue deliberations – potentially avoiding the mistrial, he said.
Kevin Reddington, another attorney representing Clancy, urged the court to examine Desronvil’s juror questionnaire, alleging that he had been dishonest in his responses.
Reddington also said he had evidence that Desronvil used his phone during deliberations and he allegedly researched altruistic filicide, USA Today reports.
Upon using Desronvil’s name, Sullivan said: “I’m going to stop you right there,” to which Reddington responded: “No, you’re not going to stop me.”
Sullivan went on to say that there was “no need here in this courtroom to use that” juror’s name, according to the Boston Globe.
In response, Reddington said: “He’s got more face time than I do,” appearing to refer to Desronvil’s media appearances following the trial.
Reddington also urged the court to determine whether Desronvil had conducted any research related to the trial, which could have warranted his dismissal.
Jennifer Sprague, a Plymouth county assistant district attorney, pushed back, saying: “If the door is open to examining this juror, it would be open on all jurors,” the New York Times reports.
After receiving the notes, Sullivan spoke with each juror, reminded them of their duties and explained what constitutes reasonable doubt. He asked whether they could apply the law to the case, and all said yes.
But Weinberg argued that Sullivan had not gone far enough. A juror who said he could follow the law could have been lying, Weinberg said, and the situation warranted questioning the foreperson separately to learn more about what was happening during deliberations.
“That’s what the foreperson was asking the court to do,” Weinberg said. “I can see that this is not easy,” he told the judge at one point.
“You don’t have to keep saying that – I have thick skin,” Sullivan replied.
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague argued that Sullivan had struck the right balance in his handling of the jury. Pressing the foreperson further would have required delving into the substance of the jury’s deliberations, potentially inserting the court’s “interpretation of what is correct” into the process.
“You were the one who looked them in the eyes and asked them the questions and was in the best position to judge their credibility,” she told Sullivan. “And you credited their answers.”
Sprague argued that the holdout juror’s disagreement was not based on personal reasons, but on his belief that Clancy was guilty.
“It is clear from the record that this juror did not refuse to deliberate,” she said. “He refused to agree.”
Since the trial ended, Desronvil said he was certain of Clancy’s guilt but that no one would listen to him.
Desronvil released a statement after the trial, saying he “didn’t have any doubts” during the deliberation process, adding: “Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses and what the prosecution presents, I thought it was enough proof that she (Clancy) knew exactly what she was doing and planned.”
Roni Carlson, the jury’s foreperson, told NBC10 in September that the single holdout juror “admitted he had reasonable doubt, and I started filling out the forms, I was so excited”.
“There were three forms I had to fill out and I started filling them out, I wrote my signature on each one, and then he said: ‘But I’m still not going to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity,’” she said.
Prosecutors argue that double jeopardy “does not bar the Commonwealth from seeking justice on behalf of the three victims.”
Additionally, Sprague requested a gag order prohibiting statements made outside the courtroom, citing what she characterized as Reddington’s “inappropriate” comments to the media, including his remark that he hoped the holdout juror could “sleep well at night”.
Reddington’s comments were “calculated to affect the public’s perception of the case”, according to Sprague. Sullivan said he would take the motion under advisement.
Sullivan did not immediately rule on the motion to dismiss. He also asked prosecutors how they intended to proceed with the case, prompting Sprague to respond: “We’re not at that point yet.”
He scheduled a hearing on 16 November to revisit the case and potentially set a retrial date.
Reddington argued against further delays, warning that they could result in a new judge taking over the case given Sullivan’s mandatory retirement in June next year.
“I am not going to have this woman sit incarcerated for the next year or two or three,” Reddington said, adding: “I want a trial and I want it with you and I want it this spring.”
Sullivan said a trial in March is “probably realistic”.
