The Massachusetts judge overseeing the murder case against Lindsay Clancy has denied her motion to dismiss the case on double jeopardy claims, clearing the way for a retrial in the strangling deaths of her three young children that some experts believe could have a better chance at a guilty verdict.
“Because the Court concludes that there was a manifest necessity for a mistrial based on the jury’s deadlock, a retrial on the murder indictments does not violate Clancy’s right not to be placed in double jeopardy,” Judge William Sullivan wrote in a 17-page order and memorandum made public Monday.
Clancy’s 26-day trial ended with a deadlocked jury on Sept. 4, with jurors later saying publicly that 11 of them accepted her insanity defense and one wanted to find her guilty of first-degree murder for what the holdout called the “methodical” slayings of Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months.
Had the motion been granted, Clancy would not face a potential second trial, said Randolph Rice, a trial attorney and former prosecutor who is not connected to the case.
Now, he says, the order gives prosecutors a chance to address what went wrong with their case in the first trial.
“I think there’s real possibility that DA [Tim] Cruz says, ‘We’re going back to trial … and we have learned from our mistakes,'” Rice said.
Among the lessons learned, Rice said, may be that Plymouth County prosecutors did not show jurors enough empathy when presenting their case after 11 of the 12 jurors voted against them.
What a second trial may look like remains unclear as prosecutors have so far declined to publicly commit to bringing the same or different charges.
Deliberations began on Aug. 27. On Sept. 1, they sent the first of several notes explaining their deadlocked situation.
“After many hours of deliberation, we are unable to come to a unanimous verdict,” that first note said, according to Sullivan, who instructed them to keep trying.
They sent a similar note on Sept. 2, and Sullivan, without objection from lawyers on either side, read them what’s known as a Tuey-Rodriguez charge — an instruction given to hung jurors encouraging them to reexamine their views with an open mind while reminding jurors they should not abandon honestly held beliefs to reach their verdict.
On Sept. 3, Sullivan received another note reading, “A member of the jury is unable to follow the instructions regarding reasonable doubt. How should we proceed?”
ATTORNEY FOR LONE HOLDOUT JUROR IN LINDSAY CLANCY MISTRIAL PUSHES BACK ON CLAIMS OF REFUSING THE LAW
In his order, Sullivan wrote that he was skeptical of the allegation that the holdout was “genuinely” unable to follow instructions regarding reasonable doubt and decided to hold a “limited inquiry” into each juror’s ability to follow the law.
Prosecutors had opposed voir dire, and the defense asked for the holdout to be replaced with an alternate. The defense then asked for the judge to ask the foreperson to expand on what she meant in her latest note, and prosecutors objected, arguing that a question like that would improperly intrude into the deliberation process. Sullivan agreed with the commonwealth and asked each juror, “Are you able to follow my instructions on the law that were given to you earlier in the trial?”
LINDSAY CLANCY HOLDOUT JUROR WON’T HAVE TO TURN OVER PHONE OR FACE INQUIRY, JUDGE SAYS
Each juror answered “affirmatively and credibly,” Sullivan wrote.
FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON X
Prosecutors and the defense agreed that the court should also reinstruct the jury, as a whole, about reasonable doubt, and Sullivan did so. Afterward, however, Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, again asked for the holdout to be replaced with an alternate, and Sullivan denied his motion.
LINDSAY CLANCY’S PUSH TO PROBE HOLDOUT JUROR HITS SNAG BEFORE PIVOTAL RETRIAL HEARING
Later on Sept. 3, the foreperson sent another note, directly accusing the holdout of ignoring reasonable doubts about the case, according to Sullivan.
LINDSAY CLANCY HOLDOUT PRAISED AS ‘AMERICAN HERO’ BY LAWYER WHO SAYS HE REPRESENTS HIM
SIGN UP TO GET THE LATEST TRUE CRIME NEWS
“[Juror Doe] has made statements acknowledging doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states,” she wrote. “This is why we cannot come to a unanimous decision.”
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM THE FOX TRUE CRIME HUB
Jurors were sent home for the day. Before deliberations resumed on Sept. 4, Sullivan and counsel on both sides discussed the latest note. Sullivan gave jurors another instruction on reasonable doubt and following the law and told them that future notes should not identify anyone’s vote based on their juror number. Two hours later, with no movement in the deliberation room, Sullivan said he planned to declare a mistrial, over Reddington’s objection.
He granted a one-hour stay as the defense appealed to the state’s Supreme Judicial Court. A single justice summarily denied the defense’s emergency request, then Sullivan declared a mistrial.
LINDSAY CLANCY LAWYER SAYS HE PLANS NEW MOTION TO DISMISS AFTER JURORS SPEAK OUT ON MISTRIAL: REPORT
Clancy’s defense later filed a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, arguing that there was no “manifest necessity” for the court to declare a mistrial and that as a result, a new trial would violate Clancy’s Fifth Amendment rights.
LISTEN TO THE NEW ‘CRIME & JUSTICE WITH DONNA ROTUNNO’ PODCAST
“Clancy contends that there was no manifest necessity for a mistrial because the Court failed to consider the alternative of inquiring into the meaning of the foreperson’s notes and questioning Juror Doe to determine whether there was good cause to discharge Juror Doe,” Sullivan wrote.
That’s the motion he denied Monday.
Juror Doe is Michael Desronvil, who came forward publicly in an interview with Fox News and said that he never had doubts about his view on Clancy’s guilt.