Lindsay Clancy’s attorney is pushing for her to be acquitted of triple-murder charges days after a Massachusetts judge declared a mistrial in the case.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington filed a renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty on Sept. 10, according to court records.
The motion asks the court to find Clancy not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, arguing that the prosecution’s evidence did not sufficiently prove her guilty of the 2023 murders of her three children. He asked for the motion to be reviewed at Clancy’s next court hearing on Sept. 29.
Clancy’s murder trial ended in a mistrial on Sept. 4 after a jury of 12 could not unanimously agree on a verdict. A note from the foreperson during deliberations indicated they were split 11-1 in favor of finding her not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, also known as an insanity defense.
The 36-year-old is charged with murdering 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan at the family’s Massachusetts home. While prosecutors allege the killings were deliberate, Reddington argues that she lacks criminal responsibility because she was experiencing postpartum psychosis at the time.
Lindsay Clancy’s attorney files motion for not guilty finding
Under Massachusetts law, a defendant can motion for a finding of not guilty on the basis that the evidence is insufficient for a conviction. It can be filed when evidence is completed, which Reddington did in this case. If denied – as Judge William Sullivan did – the motion can be renewed within five days after the jury is discharged.
The motion cited testimony from experts who all said Clancy was suffering from a serious mental illness, arguing that “the testimony bears on which illness she had, not on whether she had one.”
“No rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that she had no mental disease or defect when the Commonwealth’s own proof established that she did,” it added.
Reddington also argued that prosecutors did not prove that Clancy understood the wrongfulness of her act. He disputed the suggestion from rebuttal witnesses that Clancy knew right from wrong at the time of the killings because she was able to perform routine tasks earlier that day.
“Competence at routine tasks, during a crisis every witness agreed was acute, is not proof of criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt,” he said.
Split jury is not why Clancy’s attorney is asking for not guilty finding
Except for one holdout who expressed but refused to apply doubt, the jury was close to a finding of not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, Reddington noted in the motion.
But Reddington wrote in the motion that the request for a not guilty finding is not based on that 11-1 split.
Instead, the motion argues that “every juror who applied the reasonable doubt standard” reached the conclusion that prosecutors did not prove guilt.
If the court decides in favor of Clancy, finding her not guilty, prosecutors would not be able to retry the case. Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz has yet to say whether his office plans to pursue a retrial.
Melina Khan is a national trending reporter for USA TODAY. Keep up with her on X @melinakh and Instagram @bymelinakhan.