What happened today in court
• Status hearing: Judge William Sullivan heard arguments over a defense motion to find Lindsay Clancy not guilty of murder at a status conference today. Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said outside of court his office has not decided yet whether to retry Clancy. Another hearing is scheduled for November 2.
• Additional motions: In the November hearing, Sullivan will also hear arguments on Clancy’s motion to dismiss the case over double jeopardy, as well as the defense’s motion related to further questioning of the holdout juror.
• Dayslong stalemate: The triple-murder trial ended in a mistrial after one juror prevented the panel from reaching a unanimous verdict on whether Clancy should be held criminally responsible for killing her children. The holdout juror wants “justice” for Clancy’s children and his own privacy, an attorney representing him told reporters after the hearing today.
Updates
(40)Our live coverage for the day has ended. Read through the posts below to get caught up on what happened during the Lindsay Clancy hearing.
Lindsay Clancy’s attorney said prosecutors did not prove she actually killed her children
Lindsay Clancy’s attorney said prosecutors did not prove she killed her three children in January 2023 – a statement that appeared to contradict his arguments at trial.
“Where is the evidence that she did this?” Kevin Reddington said while arguing a Rule 25 motion for a required finding of not guilty.
At trial, Reddington argued that Clancy was in a state of postpartum psychosis when she killed her children and should not be held criminally responsible for their deaths.
When asked later outside court if he’s now asserting that Clancy did not kill her children, Reddington said his arguments weren’t new and he’s questioned the prosecution’s evidence in the case.
“It’s not new rocket science by any means. It’s the fact that they cannot prove probable cause.”
Clancy never actually admitted to the killings but still there was not a full investigation into the deaths of the Clancy children, Reddington told the court Tuesday. “They just immediately assumed that this woman was guilty.”
Reddington went through elements of the prosecution’s trial presentation, knocking evidence as circumstantial.
“When you consider the evidence that the government has, you have the exercise bands, you have the woefully deficient DNA, you have the woefully deficient fingerprinting, you have the horrific, ridiculous investigation,” he said.
A Rule 25 motion in Massachusetts is a defense request to the judge to enter a finding of not guilty because the prosecution’s evidence is legally insufficient for a juror to reasonably convict on.
A motion for a required finding of not guilty is standard in criminal trials, and they’re typically denied. The bar for granting one is high.
Catch up on what was argued at this morning's hearing
A status hearing to determine what happens next in the pending case of Lindsay Clancy has concluded, with several motions brought by both the defense and the prosecution pushed back to be discussed in early November.
Here are some of the developments from today’s hearing:
- Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, argued she should be found not guilty due to a lack of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she murdered her children. He also argued the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy was not acting in a state of psychosis.
- Prosecutor Shanan Buckingham rebutted this, and said trial evidence showed Clancy’s clear motive. Judge William Sullivan said he will take the issue under advisement.
- Defense attorney Martin Weinberg presented a post-trial motion seeking access to the jurors’ questionnaires and asking the judge not to impound jury notes and transcripts of sidebar discussions related to the situation.
- Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague argued that the jury notes sent to the court about their deadlock should remain sealed, saying releasing them would have a “chilling effect” on the judicial system.
- Jonathan Albano, a lawyer representing the Boston Globe, presented arguments related to a motion the newspaper filed asking for access to sidebar discussions. Judge Sullivan said he would add the motion to the list of issues he’ll take under advisement and rule on at a later time.
- On that list of issues are the defense’s motions to obtain more information about the holdout juror, to dismiss the case over double jeopardy, and asking the judge to enter a finding of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.
- Similarly, the prosecution’s motion opposing the defense’s request that the judge find Clancy not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility was not discussed. The prosecution’s request that Clancy’s lawyers be prohibited from making extrajudicial statements to the media was also added to the list of issues to be heard in November.
- Outside of court, Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said his office has not decided yet whether to retry Clancy.
- Also speaking outside of the courthouse, Reddington said it is not “rocket science” that he is arguing that the prosecution cannot prove probable cause. He also declined to comment to reporters on whether there have been plea deal discussions with Cruz, and expressed his frustration over claims he had “attacked” the holdout juror in the case.
CNN’s Nicki Brown in the courtroom, Eric Levenson, Rebekah Riess, Lauren del Valle, Elise Hammond and Sarah Boxer contributed to this reporting.
Reddington declines to comment on any plea deal discussions
Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington declined to comment to reporters on whether there have been plea deal discussions with District Attorney Timothy Cruz.
“If there was a discussion of a plea deal, I wouldn’t say anything about it, because it would be private between myself as an attorney and Mr. Cruz,” he said.
Asked whether a plea deal was possible, Reddington said, “That’s up to Tim.”
Reddington also said that any potential retrial likely wouldn’t be before June because of his busy schedule.
“I just have other cases that are really jammed up,” he said.
"I'm not attacking anyone," Clancy's defense attorney says
Following today’s status hearing Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington expressed his frustration over claims he had “attacked” the holdout juror in the case.
“I’m not doing anything with the jury,” Reddington said. “I’m not attacking anyone, and I’m really tired of it.
Reddington criticized Edward Paltzik, an attorney for the lone holdout juror in the Clancy case, calling him “not a serious person.”
Reddington said Paltzik had been “making statements repeatedly, continuously, just fanning the flames to hear himself talk.”
Arguing prosecution cannot prove probable cause is not "rocket science," Reddington says
Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington said it is not “rocket science” that he is arguing that the prosecution cannot prove probable cause.
During the hearing, Reddington argued that Clancy should be found not guilty due to a lack of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she murdered her children.
He also dodged a question outside court today following a status hearing in the case about a possible plea deal.
“If there was a discussion of a plea, I wouldn’t say anything about it because it would be private between myself” and the district attorney, Reddington said.
Holdout juror's attorney says he wants justice for Clancy's children and his own privacy
The man known now as the holdout juror wants “justice for the children” and his own privacy, an attorney representing him told reporters after the hearing today.
The juror, who has now been identified publicly but is called Juror Doe in court proceedings, worries for his safety, his attorney Heather O’Connor said.
O’Connor said it’s unusual that the juror and his viewpoint during deliberations has been widely discussed in public. She’s fighting a defense motion seeking the juror’s phone records, O’Connor explained.
“Now my client is obviously all over the place at this point, but that should not be the case, and it also should not be the case that he is being solely targeted out of the number of jurors that were there,” she said.
It’s difficult to achieve an “ideal” outcome for the juror at this point, O’Connor said. “You can never put the cat back in the bag once it’s out there. However, it needs to end.”
When asked if the juror was truthful on his jury selection questionnaire — an issue currently being reviewed in Clancy’s case — O’Connor said she’d wait to respond officially to that in her filings but added that the juror believes he filled it out truthfully.
Prosecutors and Clancy’s defense team did not move to excuse the juror for cause during jury selection, O’Connor also said.
According to his attorney, the juror disagreed with the foreperson’s categorization that he had “reasonable doubt” as described in a note sent during the trial.
District attorney says no decision yet on whether to retry Clancy
Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said outside of court his office has not decided yet whether to retry Lindsay Clancy on triple murder charges.
“We’re on for November 2. We’re going to see what happens with the motions; we’re still waiting for transcripts,” he said. “We’re doing a very thorough review right now, and we’re going to continue to do our job to make sure that we do what’s best in the interest of justice and the interests of the three children.”
“So have you made a decision yet?” CNN senior producer Sarah Boxer asked.
“We’re still working on it,” Cruz said.
“No determination has been made as to anything,” he added. “We’re doing our due diligence, we’re going to continue doing that. We’re going to do what we can for the children. That’s what this case is about.”
At one point, a heckler yelled, “You hate women.”
“I don’t hate women,” Cruz said.
Clancy's civil attorneys disappointed by lack of movement but moving forward separately
Rosemary Scapicchio and Andrew Meyer, attorneys in Lindsay Clancy’s civil medical-malpractice lawsuit, said they were disappointed Clancy’s criminal case couldn’t move forward today in “the way that we expected it to.”
“But we’re going to still keep working on the civil case, to hold each and every one of her doctors and the hospitals responsible for the failures in this case that caused this entire thing to happen,” Scapicchio said.
Meyer said their civil lawsuit continues to move forward “on a totally separate” track. “We’ll be ready to go within a year. Whether or not the courts will be ready to take us for the civil trial, is going to be another question,” Meyer said.
“Civil trials sometimes take a back seat to criminal trials, and so we have to find room, and the court has to find room to hear us. But we’re going to push this case forward,” Scapicchio assured.
Reddington twice criticized President Trump's statements on the case
Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington twice criticized President Donald Trump’s statements on her murder case Tuesday.
Reddington’s first mention of the president came as he said it was difficult to argue Clancy was not guilty due to a lack of evidence while at the same time arguing she was not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility. He said the trial should have been “bifurcated” into two separate trials.
“It’s readily apparent that you are put in a conundrum where you have to, in effect, admit culpability, if you will, to raise the issue of lack of criminal responsibility,” he said. “Many, many lay people have difficulty understanding the concept of the bifurcation and say, ‘Well, you know, she admitted that she did it, so she’s guilty.’”
“Then they go off on a tangent about all of these horrific allegations, that she’s a demon and she’s possessed and she should be executed. And this is coming from politicians, from President Trump all the way down.”
Later in the hearing, Reddington mentioned Trump while defending himself against accusations that he had unfairly attacked the holdout juror.
“I filed one motion and said nothing. Every comment I have made has been in reaction to people from Donald Trump on down to Nancy Mace down to (Sen. Ted) Cruz … calling for her execution. I have responded to these outlandish comments.”
In previous comments to CNN, Reddington called for Trump to pardon Clancy, even as he acknowledged that was not possible. (Clancy is charged in state court, and Trump’s pardons only cover federal crimes.)
What Trump said: “It’s a terrible situation. Look, she did a horrible, horrible thing. Can’t be worse. But you’ll find out what the price to pay is. There will be a price. It’s going to be a mental institution or jail or something.”
Lindsay Clancy's status conference is over
Today’s status conference in Lindsay Clancy’s case has concluded.
Reddington defends his statements about holdout juror
Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington spoke up in court to defend himself against accusations he was unfairly criticizing the lone holdout juror.
“I am so tired of hearing ‘persecution,’ ‘attacking,’ ‘I am doing all these horrible things to this juror,’” Reddington said. “I filed one motion and said nothing. Every comment I have made has been in reaction to people from Donald Trump on down to Nancy Mace down to (Sen. Ted) Cruz … calling for her execution. I have responded to these outlandish comments.”
Judge William Sullivan asked Reddington if he had anything to add related to the relevant topic, the Boston Globe’s motion to open sidebar discussions.
“No, I’m just tired of hearing about me persecuting people,” Reddington said.
“I never said anyone’s name,” prosecutor Shanan Buckingham responded.
Sullivan said he would take the Globe’s motion under advisement.
Boston Globe lawyer asks judge to open sidebar discussions
Jonathan Albano, a lawyer representing the Boston Globe, presented arguments related to a motion the newspaper filed asking for access to sidebar discussions.
The motion is not “asking for a ban on all sidebars,” Albano said.
However, he argued, there is a line. “When does holding a substantive argument at sidebar essentially undo the rule of public trials?” he asked.
Albano acknowledged the “important and sensitive issues that arise in this case.”
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague objected to the motion raised, referencing the sanctity and privacy of jury deliberations.
Judge tells parties to be ready to discuss new trial date November 2
After some discussion about picking a new trial date during today’s hearing, Judge William F. Sullivan told the parties to be ready to discuss a new date for trial at the next hearing scheduled for November 2.
“I’m hearing about how important this is to get this resolved, to deal with this - for all the parties. That’s what I’m trying to do,” Sullivan said. “That’s my goal in this thing: is to get this thing tried as soon as proper without sacrificing anyone’s rights, anyone’s position.”
Sullivan warned those involved with and observing the trial not to read into the fact that another trial date will be set. “This is not indicating how I’m going to rule on any of the other motions, but I think it’s important that this case move forward, if it has to move forward,” Sullivan said
Judge won't rule from the bench on the media motion to open sidebar discussions
Judge William Sullivan did not rule from the bench on The Boston Globe’s motion to open sidebar discussions at future proceedings.
The judge said he’d add that motion to the growing list of issues he’ll take under advisement and rule on at a later time, potentially in a written order or at the next hearing on November 2.
Prosecutor says releasing jury info would have "chilling effect"
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague argued that the jury notes sent to the court about their deadlock should remain sealed, saying releasing them would have a “chilling effect” on the judicial system.
She said making jury notes public would violate the privacy of the jury deliberations and “would be a travesty.”
“There is an extremely high value here to protect our system, to protect our jury system” she said, adding the public has no presumptive right of access to sidebar discussions. “We need to protect our system and deny this motion.”
Judge William Sullivan said he will take the matter under advisement.
Clancy defense argues it should have access to jury notes
Defense attorney Martin Weinberg presented the post-trial motion seeking access to the jurors’ questionnaires and asking the judge not to impound jury notes and transcripts of sidebar discussions related to the situation.
“Part of the right to a public trial, a criminal trial, is the judicial documents,” Weinberg said, arguing the documents influence the court’s decision-making. Any exceptions should be “extremely narrow” and the least restrictive, he said.
Weinberg said two jury notes are “central” to the court’s determination to call a mistrial. One of those notes – which defense counsel contends warranted a voir dire – is still under seal because the conversation about it happened at sidebar, he said.
“There needs to be some weight that outweighs the public right to access,” he said, arguing appropriate redactions can be implemented if the materials are released.
The defense doesn’t currently have access to the jury notes, according to the motion, and would agree to redact the jurors’ names and any identifying information in any public filings.
Prosecutor says trial evidence showed Clancy's clear motive
Prosecutors focused their trial evidence on Clancy’s “substantial capacity she had to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct and to control her conduct or confine her conduct to the requirements of the law,” Plymouth County Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham said in court.
There was evidence presented in the prosecution’s case that Clancy was showing signs and symptoms of mental illness leading up to the murder, Buckingham acknowledged, but that does not mean she was in psychosis and so cannot be held criminally responsible for killing her children.
The Commonwealth also presented evidence that Clancy had a “clear motive” that was “rational.” Altruistic filicide is a motive, not evidence of psychosis, Buckingham argued.
“She was in a point in her life where she felt that she was never going to be the same. She was never going to be the person that she was before. She was frustrated with the system that she had been dealing with,” Buckingham said of Clancy’s motive to kill her children and herself. “She was frustrated with the results that she was getting, and she had succumbed to the idea that she didn’t want to be here anymore, and 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. She didn’t want them to suffer.”
Judge says he will take defense motion to declare Clancy not guilty under advisement
After hearing arguments on whether to declare Lindsay Clancy not guilty of murder, Judge William Sullivan said he will take the issue under advisement.
The comment means he does not plan to rule immediately.
In summary: The defense argued that Clancy should be found not guilty due to a lack of sufficient evidence that she killed her children, as well as not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility due to a lack of evidence she was not in psychosis at the time. The prosecution argued that they had presented sufficient evidence on both points.
Reddington alleges the prosecution changed tune about Clancy’s mental health challenges
Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington argued that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy was not acting in a state of psychosis.
Reddington said the defense presented evidence from qualified experts who testified Clancy was suffering from psychosis and all doctors who spoke on the subject during the trial, including those called by the prosecution, indicated she was suffering from a mental disease or defect.
Reddington alleged the prosecution changed their tune about Clancy’s suicide attempt and mental health challenges throughout the trial, claiming in their opening statement prosecutors said Clancy killed her children because she was tired of being a mother.
“They backed off on that like a poodle on a linoleum floor,” the defense attorney said.
“Why would this woman, who the evidence shows clearly and unequivocally was a nurse, a mother, a friend, did nothing wrong in her life – why would she kill those three children? All five of the doctors – six of the doctors – indicated that she was suffering from a mental disease or defect,” he said
