Lindsay Clancy’s judge eyes March 2027 for retrial – if there is one

By Eric Levenson, Nicki Brown, CNN

Plymouth, Massachusetts (CNN) — The judge overseeing the case of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother accused of murdering her three children, said Monday he would like to schedule her retrial for March – though prosecutors remained non-committal about whether they plan to retry her on first-degree murder charges.

Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague said a retrial “will depend” on the judge’s rulings on several pending motions. “We’re not at that point yet,” she said.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington accused the prosecution of “(spinning) everyone in the breeze” and questioned why they hadn’t made a decision yet on a retrial or what charges his client may face.

“I will not have this woman sit in jail for another year or two or three. I want a trial, and I want it with you, and I want it this spring,” he told the judge.

Judge William Sullivan asked the parties to meet November 16 to discuss scheduling while he considers defense motions to dismiss the charges and access a holdout juror’s records and the Commonwealth’s motion seeking a gag order.

The discussion about the timeline for a potential retrial came at the end of a court hearing Monday that featured legalistic yet heated debates on Clancy’s earlier mistrial, the holdout juror and Reddington’s statements to the media. Sullivan said he would take the arguments under advisement and issue rulings in the coming weeks.

The hearing was the latest development in a triple-murder case that became one of the most hotly debated criminal trials in recent memory this summer before it ended in a mistrial.

Prosecutors had argued Clancy, 36, “acted intentionally, rationally and swiftly” when she fatally strangled her three children in their Duxbury home and attempted suicide in January 2023. Her defense argued she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time and was not criminally responsible for the deaths of Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and 8-month-old Callan.

Clancy’s trial put a spotlight on maternal mental health, postpartum psychosis, the internet’s tendency toward conspiracy and the ongoing skepticism of the so-called “insanity defense.”

After more than a month of testimony, the 12-person jury was unable to come to a unanimous decision due to a lone holdout juror, leaving an 11-1 split in favor of not guilty due to a lack of criminal responsibility. Sullivan declared a mistrial due to the deadlock.

Clancy did not testify in the trial. She has been held in Tewksbury Hospital since shortly after the killings and remains partially paralyzed due to her suicide attempt.

She could face life in prison if convicted of murder. If jurors find she cannot be held criminally responsible, the court will likely begin the process of committing her to a psychiatric hospital.

Prosecutors could choose to retry her on first-degree murder charges, bring lesser charges such as manslaughter or drop the charges altogether. There also is the remote possibility of a plea deal that could end the case outright.

“I’ll be talking more on November 16,” Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said outside court Monday.

In the wake of the mistrial, Reddington has made several motions seeking to prevent a retrial. In late September, Clancy appeared in court for the first time since the trial ended, and the parties debated several of them.

Fireworks in court on holdout juror

The hearing Monday exploded into fireworks when Reddington asked the court for the holdout juror’s phone records and the juror questionnaire form. In making his case, Reddington named the holdout juror, and Sullivan interrupted him to ask he not do so.

“I’m gonna stop you right there,” Sullivan said.

“No, you’re not gonna stop me,” Reddington said.

“I am,” Sullivan said.

“No you’re not,” Reddington said.

Sullivan said to refer to the juror with a pseudonym, but Reddington protested, saying the juror had given interviews on TV and in podcasts. “He’s got more face time than I do,” Reddington said.

Reddington then attempted to bring up the juror’s statements on a jury questionnaire, but Sullivan stopped him and noted the form is confidential by statute, frustrating the defense attorney.

“I have evidence that this man was not honest on this form,” Reddington alleged, slamming his hand on the podium.

Heather O’Connor, an attorney for the juror, said he did not violate any jury rules and noted the defense did not object to any issues until once they learned his position on the case. She asked the court to deny the defense’s request, saying it would send a dangerous message to potential jurors: “Agree with the majority, or potentially be investigated.”

The holdout juror, Michael Péguy Desronvil, has said his position was misrepresented by some of his fellow jurors who spoke to the press.

Defense asks to dismiss charges

Defense attorney Martin G. Weinberg asked the judge to dismiss the charges against Clancy, stating the judge improperly declared a mistrial due to a hung jury in September. He argued a retrial would violate her protections against double jeopardy.

During deliberations in Clancy’s trial, the jury foreperson wrote notes to the court saying a holdout juror was not following the law. Sullivan called the jurors into the courtroom and asked if they could follow his instructions on the law and reasonable doubt, and each juror affirmed they could.

Weinberg argued Sullivan should have asked more “probing” questions of the jury to get to the bottom of the issue. His decision not to probe the jury further violated Clancy’s right to a fair jury trial.

“At minimum, these notes required appropriate voir dire,” Weinberg said, referring to the process of questioning jurors. “That voir dire would have included – should have included – a determination of whether or not the 12th juror was deliberating in good faith.”

Sullivan interrupted Weinberg: “Didn’t I do that? Didn’t I do a voir dire? Didn’t I bring the jurors in? Didn’t I swear them in?”

Yet Weinberg said the judge’s question to the jurors was insufficient. “A single question that led to the assurance by all 12 jurors is simply constitutionally insufficient to probe what was going on in that jury room,” he said.

In contrast, prosecutor Sprague said the judge properly declared a mistrial. The jury notes indicated the holdout juror had a disagreement on the evidence rather than improper bias or a personal issue, she argued. Asking probing questions would have been inappropriate and would have violated the secrecy of the jury room, she said.

“It was clear from the record this juror did not refuse to deliberate. He refused to agree,” she said.

Prosecution asks for gag order

Finally, the Commonwealth asked the judge to impose a gag order in the case to restrict what the parties can say in public.

Sprague said Reddington’s comments on the holdout juror, on his relationship with Clancy and on a presidential pardon were “calculated to affect public perception of this case.”

“I am not looking for 15 minutes of fame in this case,” Sprague said. “What the Commonwealth wants is justice for Cora, Dawson, and Callan.”

Laura B. McConnell, a defense attorney, argued against a gag order and said the prosecution’s arguments about harm to a potential jury is “purely speculative.” Restricting what Reddington can say would also infringe on Clancy’s rights, she argued.

“He is not only her attorney, he is her voice, too,” she said.

This story has been updated with additional information.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

CNN’s Lauren del Valle contributed to this report.