Clancy seeks dismissal after jury deadlock

Lindsay Clancy appeared in Plymouth Superior Court on Monday to argue that the state cannot retry her for the murder of her three young children. The hearing marks the second time the 36-year-old mother has stood before a judge since a jury failed to reach a verdict in September.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington asked Judge William Sullivan to dismiss the charges on double jeopardy grounds. Reddington focused his arguments on Michael Desronvil, the only juror who did not vote for a guilty verdict. He urged the judge to investigate whether Desronvil used a cell phone to research case terms during deliberations and questioned if the juror had been truthful about his criminal history during selection.

The courtroom grew tense as Reddington named Desronvil publicly and discussed details the defense claimed were confidential. Sullivan intervened repeatedly, telling the lawyers to lower their voices and calling for a sidebar. At one point, Sullivan asked the attorneys to dial the volume back after prosecutors objected to the defense's commentary. Reddington replied that the juror's name was already all over the internet before he stopped using it.

Sullivan did not rule on the motion immediately. He scheduled another hearing for November 16 and indicated a retrial could begin in March. Prosecutors stated they intend to retry Clancy if the case proceeds, though they have not decided whether to pursue the exact same charges a second time.

Clancy has not disputed killing her children in 2023. Her legal team argues she suffered from postpartum psychosis and could not control her actions. Prosecutors acknowledge her mental health issues but maintain she acted deliberately and understood her conduct was wrong.

Defense attorney Martin G. Weinberg argued that Sullivan should have interviewed the jury foreperson separately after receiving two notes about a rule-breaking juror. Weinberg said this could have revealed grounds to remove Desronvil and avoid the mistrial. Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague countered that further questioning would have intruded into the private deliberations of the jury. She told Sullivan that he was in the best position to judge the jurors' credibility and that he had credited their answers.

Heather O'Connor, an attorney representing Desronvil, disputed the phone allegations. She stated that all jurors were allowed to keep their phones and that Desronvil was scrolling, not researching. O'Connor argued that investigating a juror simply because they did not vote with the majority sends a warning to future jurors. She said, if that is enough to put a juror under oath, the lesson is simple: agree with the majority or potentially be investigated.