By Nate Raymond and Luc Cohen
Sept 29 (Reuters) – Lindsay Clancy’s lawyers argued on Tuesday that prosecutors had not proven the Massachusetts woman killed her three children in 2023, in a shift from their previous defense that she was not criminally responsible because of mental illness.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington made that argument during the first hearing in Clancy’s case since a judge in Plymouth, Massachusetts, declared a mistrial on September 4 because a single juror prevented the 12-member jury from unanimously deciding whether to convict Clancy or find her not guilty by reason of insanity.
No one at that trial disputed that Clancy strangled her three children with exercise bands on January 24, 2023, in the basement of their home in the Boston suburb of Duxbury. She then cut herself with a knife and jumped from a second-story window in an attempt to end her own life, leaving her paralyzed.
But Reddington told Judge William Sullivan that prosecutors failed to present any evidence at the trial proving she had in fact killed Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and 8-month-old Callan, saying police conducted a “horrific, ridiculous investigation” that failed to collect evidence showing she killed them.
“This entire case is based on speculation,” Reddington said. “Where is the admission?”
Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham called the argument “laughable” and said it was being raised for the first time at the hearing. During the weeks-long trial, Reddington had instead argued that Clancy was in the throes of postpartum psychosis and did not know what she was doing was wrong.
Reddington also maintained that argument during the hearing, telling Sullivan that every doctor who testified at the trial indicated Clancy was suffering from a serious mental disease or defect at the time.
“The evidence shows clearly and unequivocally that she was in a state of psychosis,” he said.
Buckingham said prosecutors had not disputed that Clancy had mental health issues. But she said the evidence showed that Clancy knew what she was doing and had decided to kill the children after deciding to take her own life.
“She had succumbed to the idea that she didn’t want to be here anymore, that she was going to commit suicide, and that she was going to take those kids with her because no one could care for them like she could,” Buckingham said.
Sullivan did not immediately rule on the defense’s request to declare Clancy not guilty. But he stressed that he did not want the case to linger and told Clancy’s attorneys and prosecutors under Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz to be ready to discuss a date for a retrial when they reconvene for another hearing on November 2.
“I think it’s important that this case move forward if it has to move forward,” Sullivan said.
QUESTIONS REMAIN OVER HOLDOUT JUROR
If convicted on first-degree murder charges, Clancy would face a sentence of life in prison.
Several jurors in televised interviews after the initial trial said that but for the one holdout juror, they had been prepared to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, known in Massachusetts as lack of criminal responsibility.
If found not guilty on those grounds, she would be committed to a state psychiatric hospital for evaluation. Her commitment would then be subject to regular review by the court.
Prosecutors have several options before them, including trying to reach a plea deal or retrying Clancy on lesser second-degree murder charges, which would give her the option to waive a jury trial and proceed before a judge.
Clancy’s lawyers have filed a series of motions seeking to head off the possibility of a retrial and have also asked the judge to conduct a “limited inquiry” concerning the holdout juror.
Sullivan said he would take up that issue and other motions at the November 2 hearing, as well as a request by prosecutors for a gag order to prevent the “carnival atmosphere” that enveloped her first televised trial and protect the potential jury pool, which they said had been “inevitably tainted.”
Prosecutors said the jury pool was polluted as a result of a series of televised interviews in which Reddington characterized Clancy as a “wonderful” person, asked President Donald Trump to pardon her, and, “most disturbingly,” spoke about the holdout juror “in ways that ensured that juror would be publicly identified.”
In a video statement to Fox News’ Sean Hannity that aired late on Monday, the holdout juror, Michael Desronvil, acknowledged that since the mistrial the focus of attention had shifted to him instead of “on the three angels.”
(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi, Cynthia Osterman, Bill Berkrot and Deepa Babington)
Comments