The defense attorney representing Lindsay Clancy has submitted a renewed formal motion asking the presiding judge to issue a required finding of not guilty, maintaining that the Commonwealth failed to introduce sufficient evidence during her five-week murder trial to warrant a criminal conviction.
Attorney Kevin Reddington filed the motion on Thursday, marking his third effort to secure a directed verdict from Judge William F. Sullivan. The judge had turned down Reddington’s two previous requests during the trial, determining at those stages that, when evaluated in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, enough evidence existed for the case against Clancy to proceed to the jury.
The renewed legal effort comes shortly after Clancy’s initial trial concluded without a verdict. Judge Sullivan declared a mistrial after concluding that the jury was hopelessly deadlocked following deliberations and unable to reach a unanimous resolution on the first-degree murder charges.
Since the mistrial was declared, multiple jurors have spoken publicly, revealing that eleven members of the panel favored an acquittal and were blocked by a single holdout. These jurors stated that the lone dissenting juror acknowledged harboring reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution’s case yet refused to join the majority in voting to acquit.
In his latest court filing, Reddington emphasized that his application for a directed verdict does not rely on the internal dynamics or division of the deliberating jury. Rather, the defense maintains that prosecutors simply failed to establish Clancy’s guilt under the evidentiary standards required by law for any juror earnestly seeking the truth.
Clancy stands charged with three counts of first-degree murder in connection with the strangulation deaths of her three young children: 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan. Throughout the legal proceedings, the physical actions that led to the children's deaths were never contested, as Clancy acknowledged her direct role in the fatal incident.
The central conflict of the five-week trial instead rested on Clancy’s defense of lack of criminal responsibility. The defense argued that she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis and was entirely incapable of acting in her right mind, while prosecutors countered that she deliberately conceived and carried out a calculated plan to kill her children.
Under the legal framework governing lack of criminal responsibility, the prosecution bears the burden of disproving the defense through one of two specific avenues. Prosecutors must establish beyond a reasonable doubt either that the defendant was entirely free of any mental disease or defect at the time of the offenses, or that, despite having such a condition, she retained the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct and conform her behavior to the law.
Reddington argued in his motion that the prosecution failed to meet the threshold on both counts. With respect to the existence of an illness, every medical expert who offered testimony during the five-week trial concluded that Clancy suffered from a diagnosed mental illness, identifying her condition as either bipolar disorder or a major depressive disorder. Because of this consensus among expert witnesses, the defense asserted that no rational jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy was free of a mental disease or defect.
Addressing the second prong of criminal responsibility, Reddington argued that the prosecution's expert testimony fell short of establishing that Clancy possessed the necessary mental capacity during the tragedy. He argued that the state's experts relied heavily on observations that Clancy was capable of performing ordinary routines and executing tasks in a sequential manner.
Reddington stressed in the filing that demonstrating an individual can carry out routine activities in sequence fails to satisfy the core legal requirement. The defense argued that evidence of sequential actions does not demonstrate that Clancy retained the capacity to appreciate the moral wrongfulness of her actions or conform her behavior to the requirements of the law, which remains the sole controlling legal standard.
The defense motion also directed the court’s attention to Clancy’s severe actions immediately following the deaths of her children. After the strangulations, Clancy inflicted wounds upon her own wrists and neck before jumping from a second-story window in an attempt to end her life.
Reddington highlighted that Clancy has remained in institutional psychiatric care under continuous, one-to-one observation ever since the incident because medical professionals evaluate her as remaining at an ongoing risk of self-harm.
The defense underscored that the legal mechanism governing motions for a required finding of not guilty is designed specifically to ensure that the court shields a defendant from undergoing a second trial when the prosecution's evidence is fundamentally inadequate to sustain a conviction.
Judge Sullivan is expected to hear oral arguments regarding the defense’s renewed motion during a court session scheduled for September 29.
In addition to the directed verdict filing, Reddington announced plans to submit a motion to dismiss all charges, arguing that constitutional protections against double jeopardy should prohibit the state from attempting to retry Clancy. Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz has not yet stated whether his office plans to proceed with a second trial.
(0)