A Massachusetts judge has taken two significant defense motions under advisement in the Lindsay Clancy case. One asks the court to enter a finding of not guilty. The other asks to unseal juror notes and sidebar transcripts from the September trial that ended without a verdict.
The hearing took place in Plymouth Superior Court and was broadcast live by Court TV. Defense attorneys Kevin Reddington and Martin Weinberg argued for both motions. Prosecutors opposed them. The judge ruled on neither, and set a further hearing for November 2, 2026, at which the court will take up a double jeopardy motion and discuss when a retrial might happen.
Case Background
Lindsay Clancy was tried on charges connected to the deaths of her three children. The Boston Globe reported that Plymouth District Attorney Timothy Cruz had not yet announced whether he would retry her on three counts of first-degree murder. Court TV has reported that she has admitted strangling the children but maintains she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and acted after a voice commanded her to. Those claims frame the central legal question, which is not who was responsible but whether she can be held criminally responsible under Massachusetts law. The Boston Globecourttv
The first trial ended in a mistrial on September 4. The jury had deliberated for six days after about five weeks of testimony and repeatedly told the court it could not agree. Judge William Sullivan presides over the case. Had the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict, a mistrial would follow and the district attorney would decide whether to retry the case, which is the situation the case is now in. Patrick Clancy Speaks Out After Lindsay Clancy Mistrial as Defence Seeks Dismissal +3
Reddington renewed a Rule 25 motion for a required finding of not guilty on September 10. That motion, and the fight over what the public may see of the jury’s deliberations, were the main business of this hearing. ibtimes
What Happened During the Hearing
The hearing opened with the lawyers identifying themselves. Reddington and Weinberg appeared for Clancy, who was present in court. Two assistant district attorneys, identified in the broadcast as Jennifer and Shannon, represented the Commonwealth. A lawyer for The Boston Globe and WCVB, John Albo, also appeared to speak on the media’s behalf.
Early on, prosecutors said they needed more time to respond to the defense’s motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, which comes with a 34-page memorandum (01:58:30). A separate motion concerns extrajudicial statements, and asks the court to limit prejudicial comments in the media (02:00:05). The judge set those for the next hearing date (01:54:00).
The body of the hearing then had two parts: argument on the Rule 25 motion (roughly 02:08 to 02:33), and argument on unsealing juror notes and sidebar records (roughly 02:34 to 02:48). The judge took both under advisement. Near the end, Reddington said he could not be ready for a retrial before June (02:54:42).
The Defense’s Argument on the Rule 25 Motion
Reddington made two broad arguments: that the evidence of what Clancy did was incomplete, and that her mental state meant she could not be held criminally responsible.
On the investigation. He said there was no direct evidence and no explicit admission that she committed the act (02:08:50). He described the police investigation as “woefully deficient” (02:10:12). Among his examples were pill-crushing residue that was never tested and the lack of testing on footprint or blood smear evidence in the room and near the window.
He also challenged the timeline. In his view, the window in which the husband, Patrick, left and returned does not fit the prosecution’s theory when set against Clancy’s physical condition and injuries (02:14:35).
On criminal responsibility. The core of the defense case was that Clancy was suffering from severe postpartum depression and psychosis (02:18:19). Reddington cited testimony from Dr. Philip Resnick and Dr. Zisook, arguing that a person in a deep psychosis can carry out routine tasks outwardly while lacking real mental capacity (02:18:51). He also argued that the prosecution’s expert doctors were not qualified to give an opinion on her psychotic state (02:17:51).
The Prosecution’s Response
Prosecutors answered that the circumstantial and physical evidence was strong. Clancy was the only adult at home with the three children (02:25:18). According to prosecutors, she sent her husband out on two errands, one to CVS and one to pick up food from a restaurant, and both trips were verified by cell phone records and video surveillance (02:25:27).
They also pointed to DNA found on the ends of the exercise bands used to strangle the children (02:25:52), and to statements she made afterward to a hospital chaplain, in which she acknowledged hallucinations telling her to kill the children (02:26:06). These are the Commonwealth’s characterizations of the evidence, as presented at this stage.
On the legal question, prosecutors stressed that mental illness alone does not amount to a lack of criminal responsibility under Massachusetts law (02:29:49). They argued that her goal-directed conduct before, during and after the event showed a substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of what she did (02:30:40). The judge took the motion under advisement at 02:33:44.
The Fight Over Juror Notes and Sidebars
Defense Asks for Public Access
Weinberg argued that the Sixth Amendment and the Massachusetts Constitution guarantee a public trial, and that this extends to the sealed sidebar transcripts and juror notes (02:34:20). He focused on a critical juror note from September 3 raising potential juror bias or problems in deliberations (02:35:22). To address privacy, he said the defense would agree to redact juror names and identifying details (02:40:39).
This connects to earlier developments. On September 3, the jury complained in a note that one person on the panel was not following instructions on reasonable doubt, and the judge questioned each juror privately before rereading his instructions. Court TV reported that none of the notes had been read aloud. wgbhcourttv
Prosecutors Cite Jury Privacy
The Commonwealth opposed unsealing, citing the interest in protecting the privacy and sanctity of the jury system (02:41:32). Prosecutors argued that exposing juror notes and sidebar discussions could have a chilling effect on future jurors, making them less willing to serve or to communicate with the court (02:41:53).
The Media’s Position
Albo, for The Boston Globe and WCVB, argued that when substantive arguments happen at sidebar, the constitutional requirement of open court is undermined (02:47:46). The judge took the unsealing motion under advisement at 02:45:13, before the media’s argument concluded.
The Judge’s Role
The judge issued no rulings on the main motions. Taking a motion under advisement means the judge will consider the arguments and issue a decision later. At this hearing, the judge’s role was to manage the schedule, hear each side, and set the November date. The record supplied does not show how the judge viewed either motion, and nothing should be read into the decision to wait.
Legal Issues Explained
Rule 25 (required finding of not guilty). This rule lets a defendant ask the judge to rule that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a conviction. The rule allows a denied motion to be renewed after a jury is discharged without a verdict, with a five-day filing deadline. Granting it would be a legal ruling about the evidence, not a jury verdict. ibtimes
Criminal responsibility. Massachusetts law does not treat mental illness as a defense by itself. The question is whether, because of a mental disease or defect, a person lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct. Both sides at this hearing argued over that standard using the same events and different expert views.
Circumstantial evidence. Prosecutors relied on phone logs, surveillance video and DNA. Circumstantial evidence supports an inference rather than showing an act directly, and courts can rely on it.
Sidebar conferences. These are private discussions between the judge and the lawyers, held out of the jury’s hearing. The dispute here is whether substantive legal arguments held at sidebar must later be made public.
Double jeopardy. The defense motion to dismiss rests on this principle, which limits repeated prosecution for the same offense. The Commonwealth has asked for more time to answer. At this stage, no ruling exists.
What Happens Next
The next hearing is set for November 2, 2026, at 9:00 AM. The court is expected to hear the motion to dismiss and the motion on extrajudicial statements, and to discuss setting a possible trial date (02:53:59). Reddington told the court he cannot be ready for a trial before June.
Current Case Status
At this stage, Clancy has not been convicted or acquitted. The first trial ended in a mistrial, the Rule 25 motion and the unsealing motion are under advisement, and a retrial date has not been set. The district attorney’s formal decision on a retrial was not part of the supplied record and requires verification.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Lindsay Clancy case about?
Clancy faces charges in Massachusetts tied to the deaths of her three children. The central dispute is whether she was criminally responsible given claims of postpartum psychosis.
What happened at this hearing?
The court heard a renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty and a motion to unseal juror notes and sidebar records. The judge took both under advisement.
What did the defense argue?
That there was no direct evidence, that the investigation was deficient, and that expert testimony showed Clancy lacked criminal responsibility.
What did prosecutors argue?
They pointed to phone logs, video, DNA and her statements to a chaplain, and argued that mental illness alone does not establish a lack of criminal responsibility.
Did the judge rule on the motions?
No. Both were taken under advisement.
Why do the defense and media want the juror notes unsealed?
They argue the public has a constitutional right to see substantive proceedings. Prosecutors say unsealing would harm jury privacy.
When is the next hearing?
November 2, 2026, at 9:00 AM.
When could a retrial begin?
No date is set. Defense counsel said he cannot be ready before June.
Conclusion
The hearing settled nothing yet, but it clarified what the court has to decide. One question is whether the evidence and the law support a not guilty finding without another trial. The other is how much of the first jury’s internal struggle the public can see. The prosecution maintains that the evidence points to deliberate conduct, and the defense maintains that psychosis removed her capacity to appreciate its wrongfulness. Until the judge rules, the case sits between a mistrial and an undecided retrial.