It’s the legal equivalent of a last-second miracle shot — and for Lindsay Clancy, it might be the only thing standing between her and another agonizing trial. The 36-year-old Massachusetts mother’s defense team is now pushing for a judge to toss out the mistrial and declare her not criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children, according to court filings and legal experts.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington stunned the courtroom Friday when he announced plans to file a motion asking Judge William Sullivan to override the hung-jury outcome. If the judge grants it, Clancy would be shielded from a potential second trial and possible conviction on triple-murder charges.
The motion is a long shot, to say the least.
Boston criminal-defense lawyer Peter Elikann, who has no connection to the case, told reporters that this type of legal maneuver — known as a 25(b)(2) motion — is granted so rarely that most judges never see one succeed in their entire careers.
“Kevin Reddington has to be commended for leaving virtually no stone unturned,” Elikann said. “The granting of such a motion is rare in the extreme.”
So what would it take for the judge to actually rule in Clancy’s favor?
According to Elikann, Reddington would need to prove the jury got it so catastrophically wrong that no reasonable panel could have reached the outcome they did. That’s an incredibly high bar, experts say.
Elikann pointed to the 1997 Louise Woodward case as the one famous example in Massachusetts — when a judge reduced the British au pair’s conviction from second-degree murder to manslaughter in the death of 8-month-old Matthew Eappen.
“We don’t undo what juries did. We really respect juries,” Elikann explained. “It would have to be something that the jury got totally, totally wrong.”
The 12-person jury — nine women and three men — spent more than 38 hours deliberating across seven days. They sent three separate notes to the judge saying they were stuck, on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday.
Things took a dramatic turn Friday when Reddington begged Sullivan to hold off on declaring a mistrial after learning one of the jury notes mentioned a lone holdout who refused to follow the law on reasonable doubt.
The judge gave the defense an hour to file an emergency appeal with Massachusetts’ highest court. The appeal ultimately failed, and the panel was released Friday afternoon.
The jury foreperson had sent a note Thursday saying a single male juror wasn’t following instructions on reasonable doubt. Sullivan questioned each juror individually and re-read his instructions, but Reddington wanted the holdout questioned further — a request the judge denied.
Now all eyes turn to the Sept. 29 hearing, where Reddington will formally make his case.
The jury’s names are expected to be released Sept. 18, and Elikann says both sides will likely be watching for any media interviews that could reveal how the panel viewed the evidence.
“You might change your whole strategy,” Elikann noted.
Plymouth District Attorney Timothy Cruz has stayed quiet about what comes next. His options include retrying Clancy on the same charges, downgrading the charges, negotiating a plea deal, or dropping the case entirely.
Reddington reportedly asked for a second trial in as little as two weeks, but the judge suggested late fall at the earliest — an unusually fast turnaround, since retrials typically take eight to 12 months.
Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse, is accused of strangling her children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and 8-month-old Callan — on Jan. 24, 2023, using exercise bands. Prosecutors say she then tried to take her own life by cutting her wrists and neck, swallowing prescription medications, and jumping from a second-story window.
She survived but suffered multiple spinal injuries and is now paraplegic, according to court records.
During trial, Reddington argued Clancy was in the grip of severe postpartum psychosis and heard a hallucinatory voice commanding her to 𝓀𝒾𝓁𝓁 her children and herself. Prosecutors painted a very different picture, claiming she was lucid enough to carefully plan the killings.
If a judge rules her not guilty by reason of insanity, she’d be committed to a mental institution indefinitely. If convicted of first-degree murder, she’d face life in prison without parole.
For now, Clancy remains at Tewksbury Hospital while her legal team fights for that million-to-one ruling.
One thing is certain — this case isn’t over, and the Sept. 29 hearing could change everything. What do you think: should the judge step in, or should a new jury get the final say?
