A Massachusetts judge has rejected Lindsay Clancy’s request to dismiss the murder case against her on double jeopardy grounds, allowing prosecutors to pursue a second trial over the deaths of her three young children. Some legal experts say the prosecution could have a stronger case the next time around.
Judge William Sullivan wrote in a 17-page decision released Monday that the jury’s inability to reach a unanimous verdict made a mistrial necessary. A retrial on the murder charges, he concluded, would not violate Clancy’s protection against double jeopardy.
Clancy’s 26-day trial ended in a deadlock on Sept. 4. Jurors later said that 11 supported her insanity defense, while one favored a first-degree murder conviction for the deaths of Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months. The juror who disagreed described the killings as “methodical.”
Had the judge granted the dismissal request, Clancy would not have faced another trial, said Randolph Rice, a trial attorney and former prosecutor who is not involved in the case. The ruling instead gives prosecutors an opportunity to reconsider their approach, he said.
“I think there’s a real possibility that D.A. [Tim] Cruz says, ‘We’re going back to trial … and we have learned from our mistakes,’” Rice said. He suggested prosecutors may need to show jurors more empathy, given that 11 of the 12 jurors ultimately rejected their case.
It remains uncertain what a second trial would involve. Prosecutors have not said publicly whether they intend to bring the same charges or pursue different ones.
Jurors began deliberating Aug. 27. On Sept. 1, they sent Sullivan a note saying they could not reach a unanimous verdict despite many hours of discussion. The judge directed them to continue. They sent a similar message the following day, prompting Sullivan to give a standard instruction for deadlocked juries: jurors should reconsider their views with an open mind, but should not abandon sincerely held beliefs just to reach a verdict.
On Sept. 3, the jury sent another note, saying one member could not follow the instructions on reasonable doubt. Sullivan wrote that he doubted the juror was genuinely unable to follow the law and decided to make a limited inquiry into whether each juror could do so.
Prosecutors opposed questioning the jurors, while Clancy’s defense sought to have the holdout replaced with an alternate. The defense later asked Sullivan to seek clarification from the foreperson about the note. Prosecutors objected, arguing that doing so would intrude on deliberations. Sullivan sided with the prosecution and asked each juror whether they could follow the legal instructions given during trial. All answered yes, and Sullivan said their answers appeared credible.
Both sides agreed that Sullivan should remind the full jury of the reasonable-doubt standard, which he did. Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, again asked to replace the holdout with an alternate. The judge denied that request.
Later on Sept. 3, the foreperson sent another note accusing the holdout of acknowledging doubts but refusing to apply them to the verdict as required by law. She said that was why the jury could not reach a unanimous decision.
Jurors went home for the night. Before deliberations resumed the next day, Sullivan and the lawyers discussed the note. The judge again instructed jurors on reasonable doubt and following the law, and told them not to identify a juror’s vote by number in future notes.
About two hours later, with no progress in deliberations, Sullivan said he intended to declare a mistrial. Reddington objected. Sullivan paused the decision for an hour while the defense sought emergency relief from the state Supreme Judicial Court. A single justice denied the request, after which Sullivan declared the mistrial.
Clancy’s defense then asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that a mistrial had not been necessary and that another trial would violate her rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Sullivan wrote that Clancy’s argument was that the court should have explored what the foreperson meant and questioned the holdout to determine whether there was a valid reason to remove that juror. The judge rejected the argument in his decision Monday.
The holdout juror, Michael Desronvil, later spoke publicly in an interview and said he had never doubted his view that Clancy was guilty.
