Lawyers for the Massachusetts mother who killed her three children in 2023 are arguing that a new trial would violate double jeopardy rules. Lindsay Clancy returned to court on Monday in a bid to dismiss the murder charges she faces. This hearing marks the second time the 36-year-old has appeared in court since her trial ended in a mistrial in September, following a jury deadlock where jurors could not agree on a verdict.
While Clancy has never disputed the act of killing her three young children, her defense team has consistently argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was unable to control her behavior. Conversely, prosecutors have acknowledged that Clancy had mental health problems but maintain that she acted deliberately and understood that her actions were wrong. The primary focus of the hearing before Judge William Sullivan was a defense motion to dismiss the charges on double jeopardy grounds.
During the hearing, defense attorney Martin G. Weinberg argued that Judge Sullivan should have conducted a more thorough investigation after the jury foreperson submitted two notes indicating that a juror was not following the rules. Weinberg contended that further questioning could have revealed grounds to remove the lone holdout juror, Michael Desronvil, which might have allowed deliberations to continue and potentially avoided the mistrial.
Another attorney representing Clancy, Kevin Reddington, urged the court to examine Desronvil’s juror questionnaire, alleging that he had been dishonest in his responses. Reddington further claimed to have evidence that Desronvil used his phone during deliberations and allegedly researched altruistic filicide, according to USA Today.
When Reddington used Desronvil’s name, Judge Sullivan interrupted, stating, “I’m going to stop you right there.” Reddington responded, “No, you’re not going to stop me.” According to the Boston Globe, Sullivan stated there was “no need here in this courtroom to use that” juror’s name. Reddington replied, “He’s got more face time than I do,” appearing to reference Desronvil’s media appearances following the trial.
Jennifer Sprague, a Plymouth county assistant district attorney, pushed back against the defense's arguments, stating, “If the door is open to examining this juror, it would be open on all jurors,” as reported by the New York Times.
Following the receipt of the notes during the trial, Judge Sullivan had spoken with each juror, reminded them of their duties, and explained the concept of reasonable doubt. He asked if they could apply the law to the case, and all jurors confirmed they could. Weinberg argued that this was insufficient, suggesting that a juror who claimed they could follow the law might have been lying and that the situation warranted questioning the foreperson separately.
“That’s what the foreperson was asking the court to do,” Weinberg said. When Weinberg told the judge, “I can see that this is not easy,” Sullivan replied, “You don’t have to keep saying that – I have thick skin.”
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague argued that Sullivan had maintained the correct balance. She noted that pressing the foreperson further would have required delving into the substance of the 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 further argued that the holdout juror’s disagreement was based on his belief that Clancy was guilty, not personal reasons. “It is clear from the record that this juror did not refuse to deliberate,” she said. “He refused to agree.”
Following the trial, Desronvil released a statement claiming he “didn’t have any doubts” and that the evidence was enough proof that Clancy “knew exactly what she was doing and planned.” The jury’s foreperson, Roni Carlson, told NBC10 in September that the holdout juror “admitted he had reasonable doubt, and I started filling out the forms, I was so excited.” She added that after she signed the forms, the juror said, “But I’m still not going to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.” 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 to prohibit 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.” Sprague argued these comments were “calculated to affect the public’s perception of the case.” Judge Sullivan said he would take the motion under advisement.
He did not immediately rule on the motion to dismiss and asked prosecutors how they intended to proceed, to which Sprague responded, “We’re not at that point yet.” He scheduled a hearing for 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. “I want a trial and I want it with you and I want it this spring.” Sullivan noted that a trial in March is “probably realistic.”
