Massachusetts prosecutors have given their clearest indication yet that they plan to retry Lindsay Clancy for the murder of her three children in 2023.
At a hearing on Monday, Judge William Sullivan scheduled a 16 November hearing where he plans to rule on a handful of motions that could determine how a retrial would proceed, including a request to dismiss the first-degree murder charges.
Clancy faced a weekslong trial on those charges over the summer. It fell apart in early September after a 12-person jury failed to reach a verdict.
If there is a retrial, Judge Sullivan said, it could happen as soon as March 2027.
The prosecution did not say on Monday whether Clancy would face the same charges or amended charges in the event of a retrial.
When the parties meet again later this month, they will hear the judge’s rulings on the motions argued in court on Monday, and potentially will discuss dates for a retrial, Judge Sullivan said.
Kevin Reddington, Clancy’s attorney, pushed the judge for a spring trial.
“I am not going to have this woman sit incarcerated for the next year or two or three,” he said. “I want a date and I want it this spring.”
But prosecutor Jennifer Sprague said she wants to hear Judge Sullivan’s rulings on Monday’s arguments before the prosecution commits to a new date or specifics for a potential retrial.
When the judge asked for more details on how prosecutors planned to proceed with a potential retrial, Sprague responded: “This would be a retrial – as to what that looks like will depend”.
But that appeared to frustrate Reddington.
“Why do we not know if the next trial is going to be murder in the first degree or a lesser charge, why do they need to wait for the motions? I need to know logistically.”
Clancy was charged with three counts of first-degree-murder, which is the intentional and premeditated killing of another person.
Prosecutors could decide to bring lesser charges against Clancy in a retrial. For example, second-degree-murder charges, apply to unlawful killings committed with malice or extreme recklessness, but without prior planning.
Despite Sprague’s statement in court, District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not yet confirmed that Clancy will face a retrial and has not announced future plans for the case.
Much of Monday’s conversations in court focused on the one holdout juror, also known as Juror Doe, and the defence’s investigation into him. Juror Doe disagreed with the other jurors, who appeared to want to find Clancy not guilty by way of insanity. The lack of agreement led to a hung jury and mistrial.
In some of the most fiery moments of the three-hour hearing on Monday, Reddington requested a plethora of evidence including the holdout juror’s phone and phone records.
Heather O’Connor, the attorney who represents Juror Doe, said she was in court because Clancy’s defence team has “combined several allegations” to try to argue that a mistrial should not have been declared, she said.
That is among the motions Sullivan said he will rule on in a few weeks.
Clancy does not deny killing her children, but her defence team argues she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis at the time. Prosecutors claim the killings were intentional.
By BBC News
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
