Lindsay Clancy’s Attorneys Ask Judge to Dismiss Case on Grounds of Double Jeopardy

Lindsay Clancy returned to court on Nov. 2 as her lawyers once again tried to have her case dismissed, this time on double-jeopardy grounds.

Clancy narrowly missed being acquitted of the murder of her three children when a single juror pushed back against his 11 peers and refused to find her “not guilty by reason of insanity.”

The defense now argues that the judge should not have declared a mistrial in September, when he could have replaced that juror.

Martin Weinberg, Clancy’s attorney, said the judge didn’t do enough to probe whether that juror was improperly applying the law by refusing to acquit despite what he alleged was reasonable doubt.

He said that meant Clancy was denied a fair trial.

“I apologize, but didn’t I do that?” Judge William Sullivan asked, interrupting him.

The judge pointed out that he had called the jurors individually to the bench and questioned them, under oath, about whether they understood and were willing to apply reasonable doubt.

“You say I should have done it a second time?” Sullivan asked.

The court again delayed picking a new trial date, after prosecutors asked the judge to wait until after he ruled on that motion, along with a defense motion to preserve juror records.

The judge asked Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague how the Commonwealth of Massachusetts intends to proceed with the case. She said it would be a retrial, but the exact details would depend on his rulings. 

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington said that request was “specious” and that the prosecution didn’t need to wait. 

“Why do we not know if the next trial is going to be murder in the first degree, or a lesser charge, or no charge?” 

He told the court that the prosecution’s intentions would play into how he prepared for a future trial, including witness preparations. He also drew attention to Sullivan’s upcoming mandatory retirement in June 2027, which he called “the elephant in the room.”

“I will tell you right now that I would prefer that you be the trial judge,” Reddington said.

Reddington and the judge have had a few heated back-and-forth discussions, including at Monday’s hearing when the attorney referenced the holdout juror by name, and mentioned private details about his life. 

“No, I’m going to stop you right there,” the judge said.

“No, you’re not going to stop me,” Reddington shot back.

“Well, no, I am,” Sullivan said, ordering him to refer to the man as “Juror Doe.”

Reddington’s team wants the judge to preserve the man’s phone records, after other jurors said during interviews that he was “scrolling” through it during deliberations.

The defense team also suggested the juror was untruthful about a past arrest record on his juror questionnaire. 

Prosecutors have submitted a motion asking the judge to bar Reddington from making “extrajudicial” and “prejudicial” statements about the trial, including about the holdout juror.

Judge Sullivan said he expects to rule on those three motions shortly, and he set another hearing for Nov. 16, when the parties may finally settle on a trial date.