Judge Denies Lindsay Clancy’s Bid for Acquittal After Mistrial in Triple Murder Case

A judge has rejected a request from Lindsay Clancy’s attorneys to find her not guilty of killing her three children, following a mistrial declared when a Plymouth, Massachusetts jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict.

According to The New York Times, Judge William Sullivan ruled that a rational juror could reasonably have found Clancy, 36, guilty of triple murder based on the evidence presented at trial. Sullivan denied the defense’s renewed arguments that prosecutors had failed to prove Clancy murdered her children — Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months — in January 2023.

A lawyer for Clancy did not immediately respond to Rolling Stone‘s request for comment.

During a hearing on Tuesday, September 29, Clancy’s attorney Kevin Reddington argued his client should be acquitted, claiming the case against her was “based on speculation.” He challenged the prosecution’s evidence, questioning the blood spatter analysis and casting doubt on the assertion that Clancy cut herself and jumped from a window in a suicide attempt that left her paralyzed. Reddington also disputed that Clancy had ever directly admitted to killing her children.

In rebuttal, Plymouth County Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham defended the DNA evidence found on the exercise bands allegedly used to strangle the children, arguing there was ample proof that Clancy was the only person in the home with the three children at the time of the killings.

Addressing Reddington’s claim that Clancy never confessed, Buckingham stated, “The entire record is voluminous as to the information supporting the fact that she did this.” Buckingham also referenced statements Clancy allegedly made to a hospital chaplain, in which she “talks about the fact that she had these hallucinations telling her what she had to do, telling her she had to kill the kids.”

Sullivan has scheduled a November 2 hearing to discuss a possible retrial. The docket also includes additional defense arguments on their motion to dismiss the case on double jeopardy grounds, as well as a motion related to efforts to question the holdout juror.

Source link