Judge denies Lindsay Clancy's motion to dismiss case
A judge on Monday denied Lindsay Clancy's motion to dismiss her triple-murder case, clearing the way for a potential retrial.
"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.
Sullivan also denied a motion to investigate the holdout juror in her previous trial, as well as a prosecution request for a gag order.
Judge denies Clancy's motion to dismiss
Sullivan rejected Clancy's argument that being retried on the same charges would violate her double jeopardy rights, concluding that the court acted properly by limiting the inquiry into the holdout juror.
Any further questioning of that holdout juror "would undoubtedly have a coercive effect," according to Sullivan.
"The Court understands the frustration of the defendant and the jurors that despite the utmost diligence, the jury ultimately was unable to reach a verdict in this emotionally grueling and complicated case. While a party may desire a procedure that increases the odds of receiving a favorable outcome to the case, the Court's primary concern must be protecting the fairness of the proceedings and avoiding the possibility of a coerced verdict," he wrote.
Sullivan also pushed back on the defense claim that the holdout juror failed to follow the court's instruction on the law.
"Given that the jury unquestionably had reached an impasse, the Court did not and does not view the foreperson's notes as reliable evidence of Juror Doe's inability or refusal to deliberate or follow the law," he wrote.
He also rejected evidence about the holdout juror that came to light in the media after the mistrial was declared.
"The Court declared a mistrial after giving counsel a full opportunity to be heard and after carefully considering the alternatives proposed by defense counsel. The Court made its decision based on what was known at the time. Information that has since come to light cannot serve to undermine that decision," he wrote.
Judge denies request for gag order, for now
Sullivan also denied the prosecution's request for a gag order ahead of a retrial, concluding they failed to prove that out-of-court statements pose "a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the outcome of the trial or prejudicing the jury venire."
"The Commonwealth has not sufficiently demonstrated that defense counsel's extrajudicial speech poses a serious threat of harm by materially prejudicing the jury venire or the outcome of any retrial. Therefore, the Commonwealth has failed to meet its burden to justify the extreme remedy of a prior restraint," he wrote.
In rejecting the motion, Sullivan noted that prosecutors could ask for a gag order again if the circumstances change ahead of a new trial, as well as reminded defense lawyer Kevin Reddington about the "ethical obligations" in the state's rules of professional conduct.
Judge rejects push to investigate holdout juror
Sullivan rejected a series of requests from Clancy's team to access records related to the holdout juror, including court records from jury selection and deliberations as well as the holdout's phone records.
"Because Clancy has failed to demonstrate that the requested evidence is relevant and material to her defense at any retrial of the murder indictments, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to order production. Nor can the Court perceive any valid justification for examining Juror Doe under oath at this point in the proceedings," he wrote.
Sullivan said turning over the records would violate juror confidentiality as well as "discourage citizens from being willing to serve as jurors in the future."
"This requested information is, again, not material to the defendant's Motion to Dismiss or relevant to any retrial. The allowance of this request without the proper basis or justification would be an improper intrusion into this juror's privacy and would serve to discourage citizens from being willing to serve as jurors in the future," he wrote.
Judge previously said Clancy could face new trial in March 2027
Clancy is due back in court on Nov. 16, when Judge Sullivan said he plans to schedule a trial date for the Massachusetts mother.
Judge Sullivan said he would like the new trial to begin in March 2027, though prosecutors have not yet announced their plans for retrying the case.
This is a developing story. Please check back for more updates.
