Judge Sullivan Pauses Decision on Lindsay Clancy Murder Charges After Hung Jury Dispute

Lindsay Clancy’s legal case returned to the Plymouth County Superior Court on Monday as Judge William Sullivan weighed pending motions following a hung jury verdict. The proceedings focus on whether the state should drop the remaining charges against the Duxbury mother or proceed with a new trial.

The underlying tragedy dates to January 24, 2023, when emergency services responded to the Clancy family home in Duxbury, Massachusetts. First responders discovered the bodies of Cora, age five, and Dawson, age three, in the basement. Both children died from strangulation. Their infant brother, Callan, who was eight months old at the time, was rescued with life but died three days later. Authorities found Clancy in the backyard following an apparent suicide attempt.

The initial trial lasted nearly six weeks and featured testimony from more than 80 witnesses. The core legal question was whether Clancy was legally responsible for her actions or should be acquitted on the grounds of insanity. On September 4, 2026, the judge declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a consensus.

Defense attorney John Reddington argued that the state should dismiss the case due to insufficient evidence and a violation of double jeopardy protections. He contended that the sole dissenting juror, referred to in court as Juror Doe, effectively disconnected from group deliberations. Reddington noted that the juror spent time reviewing his phone during discussions, a practice he claimed was prohibited.

Reddington stated that the defense sought to investigate Juror Doe primarily because of his vote. He warned that if a minority vote is enough to trigger sworn interrogation and phone records reviews, future jurors will face a simple choice: agree with the majority or face investigation. "If that is enough to subject a juror to sworn testimony, to get his phone records and to look at his history, then the lesson for any future juror in this state is simple: either you agree with the majority, or you are subject to being investigated," Reddington said.

Representatives for Juror Doe countered that the juror did not ask for a seat on the panel but served as requested. The juror’s attorney stated that Clancy’s defense accepted his inclusion. She quoted a note to the judge describing the juror as someone who was talking, explaining his viewpoint, and interacting with others. "We are here because Juror Doe did not vote the way the defense needed," the attorney said.

The prosecution, led by the Plymouth County District Attorney’s office, has not yet confirmed whether it will pursue a second trial. During the hearing, Reddington challenged the confidentiality of the juror questionnaire, arguing that he had evidence the man was not truthful on his form. Judge Sullivan indicated that the law treats the questionnaire as confidential and would decide what information could be discussed in open court versus in private.

A dispute arose when Reddington referred to the dissenting juror by his last name. Sullivan attempted to interrupt, stating there was no need to mention the name in that room. Reddington responded that the juror had received more television screen time than the attorney himself. The judge noted that the juror has appeared in national media.

Judge Sullivan stated he would analyze the motions before making a ruling. He specifically mentioned a reference to John Adams made during arguments and noted he keeps a bobblehead of the second president on his desk. Sullivan said he would try to remember the lessons and writings of Adams while considering the case. He praised the arguments from both sides as useful and well-posed.

No decision was reached on the motion to dismiss Clancy’s charges on Monday. The court will address the prosecution’s motion to prohibit out-of-court comments after a break.