Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer urges judge to dismiss murder charges or put her back on trial
Lawyers for Lindsay Clancy asked a judge on Monday to either dismiss charges against her or put her back on trial.
The mother from Massachusetts was in court for the second time since her previous trial ended in a jury unable to reach a verdict over whether she was responsible for the death of her three children.
At the time of the trial in September, jurors were 11-1 in favour of acquittal, with one holdout juror making the news for his stand, which resulted in a mistrial.
Advert
The defence lawyers acting for Clancy urged the judge to dismiss the charges against her on the grounds of double jeopardy, arguing that the judge should have removed the holdout juror, allowing the rest of the jury to continue their discussions.
However, on Monday Judge William Sullivan, who presided over the first trial, did not rule.
Kevin Reddington, acting for Clancy, asked Judge Sullivan to move rapidly and argued the district attorney should disclose to the court whether Clancy will have to face murder charges once again.
Mr Reddington said, “I am not going to have this woman sit incarcerated for the next year, or two or three.”
He continued, addressing Judge Sullivan “I want a trial and I want it with you and I want it this spring.”
Another hearing was scheduled for November 16, and Judge Sullivan said a retrial could be possible in March.
The Associated Press reports prosecutors were undecided as to whether they will pursue the same charges as Clancy faced in her first trial or if they would be made more palatable to a jury.
The BBC reported prosecutor Jennifer Sprague saying she wanted to hear the judge’s rulings on Monday’s arguments before announcing the date of a new trial or specifics of the charge.
This could mean the previous charges of three counts of first-degree murder could be reduced to second-degree murder, which are not premeditated, but are unlawful killings carried out with malice or recklessness but no planning in advance, reports the BBC.
Mr Reddington was reportedly frustrated by this approach, saying "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’s defence says she suffered from postpartum psychosis which left her unable to control her behaviour in 2023 when she killed her young children.
Prosecutors argue Clancy’s actions were deliberate, and she understood they were wrong - despite acknowledging she was suffering from mental health issues.
Topics: Mental Health
Michael D. Carroll