Judge sets November hearing to decide if Lindsay Clancy faces a new trial

Lindsay Clancy returned to Plymouth County Superior Court on Monday to address the aftermath of a hung jury in her high-profile murder case. The judge scheduled a follow-up hearing for November 16 to resolve pending motions that will determine her next legal steps.

The core dispute centers on whether Clancy should face a second trial or have her charges dismissed. Defense attorney Reddington argued that the state’s case lacks sufficient evidence and that retrying Clancy violates her protection against double jeopardy. The prosecution countered that it remains committed to seeking justice for the deaths of the three children.

Judge William Sullivan indicated he wants to rule on the motions before setting a specific trial date. He suggested that if the motion to dismiss is not allowed, the court can select a date for a new trial in March. Sullivan noted that this timeline does not prevent him from dismissing the case if the legal arguments warrant it.

The initial trial ended in September 2026 after nearly six weeks of testimony from more than 80 witnesses. The jury could not reach a consensus on whether Clancy was legally responsible for her actions or should be acquitted by reason of mental illness. One juror, referred to as Juror Doe, reportedly refused to join the majority view.

Several jurors alleged that the dissenting member disconnected from group discussions and spent time on a cell phone during deliberations. The defense used this behavior to support their argument for a mistrial. Reddington questioned why the public does not yet know if the next trial will involve first-degree murder charges, lesser counts, or no charges at all.

Reddington referred to Sullivan’s upcoming retirement as the elephant in the room. He expressed a preference for the new trial to proceed before Sullivan, given the judge’s familiarity with the case details. Reddington stated that he wants a trial this spring and wants it presided over by Sullivan.

Prosecutor Sprague said the state has not decided which charges to bring in a potential second trial. The office is waiting for the court to resolve all pending motions, including any appeals, before finalizing its strategy. Sprague emphasized that the priority is justice for the Clancy children rather than public attention.

The defense objected to a request for pretrial publicity limits, calling it a prior restraint on free speech. They argued that the information about Juror Doe came from a juror who also disclosed how they voted, implying a personal interest in the outcome. The defense warned that investigating a single juror’s phone history sets a dangerous precedent for future juries in the state.

Sullivan paused the session after the defense attorney finished her argument. The court will resume to address the prosecution's motion to restrict comments made outside the courtroom. Both sides remain focused on the November 16 hearing as the next critical milestone in the case.