PLYMOUTH, Mass. (AP) – Lindsay Clancy's lawyer urged a judge on Monday to either dismiss the murder charges against her or expedite the process of setting a new trial date. This plea comes as Clancy, a Massachusetts mother, has made her second court appearance following a preliminary trial that ended with a deadlocked jury. The jury was almost unanimous, with an 11-1 split in favor of acquittal, prompting the judge to declare a mistrial.
During the court proceedings, Clancy’s defense team moved to dismiss the charges on double jeopardy grounds. They argued that the judge should have removed the lone juror who favored conviction, allowing for further jury deliberation. Judge William Sullivan, however, did not make an immediate ruling on this motion. Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, expressed urgency for the judge's decision, stressing that he did not want Clancy to remain incarcerated for years without resolution. He insisted that they want a retrial overseen by Sullivan, preferably in the upcoming spring.
Judge Sullivan indicated in court that a hearing has been scheduled for November 16 and suggested that a retrial could potentially begin in March. Prosecutors have communicated their intent to retry Clancy if the case moves forward but have yet to determine whether they would pursue the same murder charges or opt for a lesser charge that might be more acceptable to a jury.
Clancy's defense has maintained that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time of the tragic incident in 2023, which rendered her incapable of controlling her behavior. While prosecutors acknowledge Clancy's mental health issues, they assert that she acted deliberately and possessed awareness of the wrongfulness of her actions.
The court proceedings included heated exchanges, particularly regarding the conduct of the juror who held out for conviction. Reddington urged Judge Sullivan to investigate this juror, alleging that he had presented false information on his jury questionnaire and improperly used his cell phone during deliberations. At one point during the hearing, Judge Sullivan admonished Reddington for mentioning the juror's name in open court, as he has a standing order to keep jurors' names sealed temporarily for their protection.
Another attorney on Clancy’s defense team, Martin Weinberg, commented on the judge's management of the jury, suggesting that the mistrial could have been averted had there been a more in-depth inquiry regarding the breakdown in juror discussions. Sullivan had received two notes from the jury indicating that the lone holdout juror was not adhering to the court's instructions on reasonable doubt. After reviewing these communications, Sullivan had reminded all jurors of their responsibilities, establishing that they could apply the law to the case.
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague defended the judge’s actions, asserting that the balance struck by Sullivan was appropriate. She noted that any further inquiry might lead to delving into the actual deliberations, which is against legal protocol. Meanwhile, the juror in question, Michael Desronvil, has indicated in interviews that he was convinced of Clancy’s guilt, but felt that his fellow jurors were not willing to engage in serious discussion about the evidence.
Desronvil's attorney, Heather O'Connor, opposed any investigation into his conduct, arguing that he performed his juror duties appropriately. She rebuffed claims of improper cellphone use, asserting that all jurors were allowed to keep their phones, and there was no evidence suggesting that Desronvil misused his device inappropriately.
Additionally, there were discussions regarding a request by the prosecution for a gag order to be imposed during the pending case, aimed at preventing any influence on a future jury. Reddington had publicly spoken during the trial, a contrast to the prosecutors who generally refrained from commenting to the media. Clancy's lawyers contended that a gag order would infringe upon their constitutional rights to free speech.
