Lindsay Clancy Defense After the Mistrial

The Lindsay Clancy Defence Changes the Question

The first trial asked whether Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible when she killed her three children. Now, her lawyers are asking whether the Commonwealth proved she killed them at all.After the Mistrial: The Lindsay Clancy Defence Changes the Question

When Lindsay Clancy: Evidence and Public Opinion ended, the criminal case had ended in a mistrial.

Eleven jurors reportedly favoured finding Clancy not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. One juror disagreed. Because Massachusetts requires a unanimous verdict, Judge William Sullivan discharged the jury without a verdict on September 4, 2026.

The evidence had been heard, but the case was not over.

On September 29, Clancy returned to Plymouth Superior Court for the first substantial hearing since the mistrial. The hearing was expected to provide some indication of what would happen next: another trial, an agreement between the parties, or a judicial ruling that could end the prosecution.

Instead, it produced a significant change in the defence’s position.

A Different Question From the One the Jury Considered

Throughout the trial, the central dispute was not whether Lindsay Clancy caused the deaths of Cora, Dawson and Callan.

The defence maintained that she killed the children while suffering from psychosis and therefore could not appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions. The prosecution argued that although she was experiencing serious mental-health problems, she nevertheless understood what she was doing and knew it was wrong.

That was the question placed before the jury:

Was Lindsay Clancy criminally responsible?

At the September 29 hearing, defence attorney Kevin Reddington introduced another argument. He told Judge Sullivan that the Commonwealth had failed to prove that Clancy killed the children at all.

“This entire case is based on speculation,” Reddington argued, while criticizing the police investigation and asking where the evidence or admission could be found.

Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham called the argument “laughable” and emphasized that it had not been the position advanced during the trial.

This was not merely a different way of describing the psychosis defence. It was a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence establishing that Clancy caused the deaths.

What Is a Rule 25 Motion?

The argument arises under Rule 25 of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Rule 25 allows a judge to enter a required finding of not guilty when the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain a conviction. A judge may reserve a decision on such a motion and decide it after a jury has been discharged without returning a verdict.

That does not mean Judge Sullivan is being asked to decide whether he personally agrees with the prosecution or whether he would have voted to convict.

The legal question is whether the Commonwealth presented enough evidence for a rational factfinder to find the essential elements of the offences proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is a considerably narrower question than the one the jury faced.

The defence is entitled to challenge every element the prosecution was required to prove. It may also preserve alternative legal arguments, even when those arguments appear inconsistent with the primary theory presented at trial.

But that does not make the change insignificant.

The Evidence Did Not Suddenly Disappear

At trial, Clancy’s defence reportedly offered to stipulate in writing to her involvement in the deaths. Her lawyers concentrated on her mental condition, medications, psychiatric history, alleged command hallucinations and capacity to understand that her actions were wrong.

The jurors also heard evidence that:

Clancy’s DNA was found on the exercise bands used to strangle the children.
Her husband and first responders found her injured outside the home shortly before the children were discovered in the basement.
The prosecution alleged that she arranged for her husband to leave the house to collect medication and food.
Jurors heard testimony concerning statements that Clancy heard a voice telling her to kill the children and herself.
The defence did not present another person as the perpetrator or advance an alternative explanation for how the children were killed.

Reddington argued that Clancy had no memory of the event and had not made a clear confession. But an absence of memory is not the same as evidence that an act did not occur. Nor does a criminal prosecution ordinarily require a confession when circumstantial and physical evidence are available.

The Commonwealth still carries the burden of proof. Clancy is not required to prove who else committed the killings.

But the question under Rule 25 is not whether every possible piece of evidence was collected or whether the investigation was flawless. It is whether the evidence actually presented was legally sufficient.

Those are not the same questions.

The Defence Is Now Advancing Two Positions

Reddington did not abandon the lack-of-criminal-responsibility argument. He continued to maintain that the psychiatric evidence showed Clancy was psychotic when the children died.

The defence is therefore advancing two arguments:

The Commonwealth did not present legally sufficient evidence proving that Clancy caused the deaths.
If the evidence did establish that she caused the deaths, she was suffering from psychosis and was not criminally responsible.

Lawyers routinely argue in the alternative. Doing so is not itself improper.

But outside the technical structure of litigation, the shift matters because it changes the public narrative surrounding the case.

The trial was presented as a dispute over Clancy’s state of mind. The post-mistrial argument attempts to move the dispute one step backwards—from why she did it and whether she understood it was wrong to whether the Commonwealth proved she did it at all.

That is a much more dramatic proposition.

A legal argument does not become a new fact simply because it is stated in court.

Judge Sullivan Did Not Rule

Despite some online reactions suggesting that the charges were about to be dismissed, Judge Sullivan did not grant the Rule 25 motion.

He did not acquit Clancy.

He also did not schedule a second trial.

Instead, Sullivan deferred the unresolved issues and scheduled another hearing for November 2. He instructed the parties to be prepared to discuss a retrial date if the case proceeds, emphasizing that he did not want it to remain unresolved indefinitely.

Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has still not publicly committed to retrying the case. He said his office would make that decision after obtaining the necessary information.

That leaves several possible outcomes, but no final decision has been announced.

More Than One Motion Is Now Before the Court

The Rule 25 motion is only one part of the post-mistrial litigation.

The defence has also raised a double-jeopardy argument aimed at preventing another trial. Argument on that motion was postponed until November 2 after prosecutors said they had received the 34-page filing only eight days before the hearing and required time to respond.

Other unresolved matters include:

A defence request for a limited inquiry involving the holdout juror
Preservation and possible disclosure of jury-related records
Access to juror notes and sidebar transcripts
A media request for access to sidebar discussions
The prosecution’s request for restrictions on public comments by the lawyers
The possibility and timing of a second trial

Prosecutors argue that the extensive publicity surrounding the mistrial—including comments about the holdout juror—has contaminated the potential jury pool and created what they described as a “carnival atmosphere.”

The defence, meanwhile, argues that access to certain jury materials may be necessary to protect Clancy’s constitutional rights.

The Juror Has Become Part of the Story

The mistrial did not end public judgment. It redirected it.

After reports emerged that the jury had divided 11–1, the holdout juror was identified online and became the target of intense public scrutiny. Other jurors appeared in interviews. Competing accounts of the deliberations began circulating. The holdout juror later released a video statement after retaining his own lawyer.

Once again, the case began developing along two parallel tracks.

One track concerns the formal legal process: motions, evidence, constitutional protections and the possibility of another trial.

The other concerns the online process: supporters, critics, television appearances, fundraising, personal attacks and declarations about what supposedly happened inside the jury room.

This is precisely the divide examined in my book.

The courtroom requires admissible evidence and legal standards. The internet rewards certainty, speed and emotional alignment.

Evidence, Advocacy and Narrative

Reddington’s job is to use every lawful argument available to protect his client. Buckingham’s job is to defend the sufficiency of the Commonwealth’s evidence and determine whether another prosecution is justified.

Neither lawyer’s argument is evidence merely because it was made forcefully.

The defence’s criticism of the investigation does not establish that someone else killed the children. The prosecution’s confidence does not eliminate its continuing burden to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

The same discipline should apply outside the courtroom.

People should be able to support greater recognition of postpartum psychosis without rewriting the evidentiary record. They should be able to believe Clancy was criminally responsible without dismissing the severity of her mental illness. They should also be able to question the conduct of a juror without treating disagreement as proof of corruption or misconduct.

Complex cases remain complex even after people choose a side.

What Happens Next?

The next significant hearing is scheduled for November 2.

Judge Sullivan is expected to revisit several unresolved issues, including the Rule 25 request, the double-jeopardy motion, jury-related questions, restrictions on public statements and the scheduling of any retrial.

Until then, Lindsay Clancy remains charged. The mistrial did not acquit her, and the September 29 hearing did not dismiss the case.

What changed was the defence’s argument.

The first jury was asked whether Clancy lacked criminal responsibility when she killed her children. Now the defence is asking the judge to conclude that the Commonwealth failed to prove she killed them in the first place.

Whether that argument succeeds will depend on the legal sufficiency of the trial record—not the volume of support outside the courthouse, the number of television interviews, or which version of the story receives the most attention online.

The trial may have ended without a verdict.

The contest over its meaning clearly has not.

This post continues my coverage of the Lindsay Clancy case following the publication of Lindsay Clancy: Evidence and Public Opinion: The Trial the Internet Decided.

Stay curious. Look closer. Keep the conversation going.

— Laurie

After the Mistrial: Lindsay Clancy Defense 180