The judge overseeing Lindsay Clancy’s murder case denied one of her motions aimed at avoiding a retrial.
Clancy still has another motion to dismiss the case that’s pending in court, and the district attorney in Plymouth County, Massachusetts, hasn’t committed to pursuing a retrial against her.
Clancy’s post-trial motion – typical in criminal trials – asked the judge to enter a finding of not guilty, arguing prosecutors didn’t present enough evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that she killed her children.
Clancy’s attorney Kevin Reddington filed the motion after her seven-week trial ended in a mistrial over a hung jury last month.

The jury reported they were deadlocked 11-1 after deliberating for six days.

The trial garnered national attention, sparking discussion about maternal mєntal health and postpartum resources available to women.

Clancy had supporters clad in pink each day at court and a widespread following online.
Reddington and prosecutors argued the motion before Judge William Sullivan at a hearing Tuesday.
Reddington said at trial prosecutors did not prove Clancy killed her three children – Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and 8-month-old Callan in January 2023 – a statement that appeared to contradict statements he made while trying the case.

Clancy never actually admitted to the killings, but still there was not a full investigation into the deaths of the Clancy children, Reddington told the court Tuesday. “They just immediately assumed that this woman was guilty.”
He also said, if that wasn’t enough, the Commonwealth didn’t sufficiently prove Clancy should be held criminally responsible for the killings because of her mєntal state at the time.
A prosecutor called the defense argument “laughable.”

Defense had high bar to reach
Judge Sullivan didn’t rule from the bench at the time but issued a written order Thursday denying the defense motion.
“With respect to the elements of murder and the identity of who committed the alleged crimes, the evidence presented by the Commonwealth in its case in chief … was sufficient to satisfy any rational trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt,” Sullivan wrote.
A motion for a required finding of not guilty in Massachusetts is a defense request to the judge to enter a finding of not guilty because the prosecution’s evidence is legally insufficient for a juror to convict on.
The bar for granting one is high, so they’re typically denied.

The judge must view the trial evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, and the defense must show the court that prosecutors failed to present enough evidence for a reasonable juror to find the prosecution proved every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

At trial, Reddington argued that Clancy was in a state of postpartum psychosis when she killed her children and should not be held criminally responsible for their deaths.
After 𝘬iᩚlling her children, prosecutors allege, she then tried to 𝘬iᩚll herself, slashing her neck and wrists then jumping from a window.

When asked Tuesday after the hearing, if he’s now asserting that Clancy did not 𝘬iᩚll her children, Reddington said his arguments weren’t new and he’s questioned the prosecution’s evidence in the case.
“It’s not new rocket science by any means.

It’s the fact that they cannot prove probable cause.”
At trial, Reddington told the jury Clancy should not be held criminally responsible for 𝘬iᩚlling her children because she was in a state of postpartum psychosis.
Earlier this week, Sullivan said he’d hear arguments at the next hearing set for November 2 on the outstanding defense motion to dismiss the case over double jeopardy and other issues related to the holdout juror.

The judge also said he wants to schedule a date for the second trial.
If they do agree on a retrial date, Reddington said he’s not available for a trial before June because of his caseload.
Both Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz and Clancy’s defense team have declined to speak publicly about any ongoing plea negotiations.