Lindsay Clancy's Motion To Dismiss Killing Case Over Her 3 Children Denied By Judge

A mother, three children, one night in Duxbury

On the night of Jan. 24, 2023, prosecutors say Lindsay Clancy strangled her three young children inside their family home in Duxbury, Massachusetts. Cora was 5. Dawson was 3. Callan was 8 months old.

Clancy was charged with three counts of first-degree murder. She pleaded not guilty.

She has never disputed that she killed her children, according to the Guardian. The fight in court has been over why.

Her attorney, Kevin Reddington, argued she was overmedicated and suffering from postpartum psychosis the night of the killings, leaving her unable to control her behavior and not criminally responsible for what she did. Prosecutors told the jury she knew right from wrong and that the killings were planned, according to the Guardian and CBS News.

An 11-1 jury and a mistrial

At trial, Clancy's own attorney admitted she killed the three children, according to CBS News. The only question for the jury was her state of mind — not guilty by reason of insanity, or first-degree murder.

The jury could not answer it. Eleven jurors voted to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity. One juror held out for guilty, according to NewsNation and CBS News.

Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial in September after the jury deadlocked. The holdout juror, Michael Péguy Desronvil, later came forward publicly after facing scrutiny over his vote, CNN reported.

"I thought it was enough proof that she [Clancy] knew exactly what she was doing and planned." — Michael Péguy Desronvil, the holdout juror, in a statement reported by the Guardian

The ruling that keeps the case alive

On Monday, Sullivan denied Clancy's motion to dismiss the three murder charges — the ruling that clears the way for a second trial.

"Because the Court concludes that there was a manifest necessity for a mistrial based on the jury's deadlock, a retrial on the murder indictments does not violate Clancy's right not to be placed in double jeopardy," Sullivan wrote, according to ABC News.

Manifest necessity is a high bar in Massachusetts law. It requires a judge to show every reasonable alternative to a mistrial was exhausted before declaring one, according to CNN. Sullivan found he'd met it: he had already questioned every juror individually after the foreperson flagged concerns, reminded them of their duties, and confirmed each one could follow the law.

"The Court understands the frustration of the defendant and the jurors that despite the utmost diligence, the jury ultimately was unable to reach a verdict in this emotionally grueling and complicated case," Sullivan wrote, according to NewsNation. "While a party may desire a procedure that increases the odds of receiving a favorable outcome to the case, the Court's primary concern must be protecting the fairness of the proceedings and avoiding the possibility of a coerced verdict."

In two companion rulings issued the same day, Sullivan denied Clancy's request for the holdout juror's cellphone records and jury questionnaire, finding the defense hadn't shown the material was relevant to any retrial. He also denied prosecutors' request for a gag order on the lawyers in the case, ruling they hadn't proven that out-of-court statements threatened to taint a future jury pool.

The Plymouth County District Attorney's Office has not definitively committed to retrying Clancy and declined to comment on Monday's rulings, according to CNN.

The fight over the holdout juror

Clancy's lawyers made two separate arguments for why the case should end here. Attorney Martin Weinberg said a retrial would violate double jeopardy because Sullivan should have replaced the holdout juror with an alternate and kept deliberations going, rather than declaring a mistrial.

Weinberg argued the burden was on prosecutors to prove "manifest necessity" for the mistrial, and that Sullivan should have questioned jurors more thoroughly after the foreperson sent two notes raising concerns that one juror wasn't following the court's instructions on reasonable doubt.

Reddington, representing Clancy alongside Weinberg, pushed to examine the holdout juror's questionnaire and cellphone records, alleging he had been dishonest on his questionnaire and had researched "altruistic filicide" on his phone during deliberations, USA Today reported. When Reddington used the juror's name in court, Sullivan cut him off: "I'm going to stop you right there." "No, you're not going to stop me," Reddington replied, according to the Guardian.

Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague argued Sullivan had already struck the right balance. "If the door is open to examining this juror, it would be open on all jurors," she said, according to the New York Times, as reported by the Guardian. "It is clear from the record that this juror did not refuse to deliberate," she told the court. "He refused to agree."

Sullivan ultimately agreed with the prosecution. In his written ruling, he said the foreperson's notes "did not plausibly suggest that Juror Doe refused to consider the trial evidence or disagreed with the law as explained by the Court in its instructions," and that anything learned about the juror after the fact "cannot serve to undermine" his original decision, according to CNN.

The juror and the foreperson, in their own words

Desronvil has said publicly that he never doubted his vote. "I didn't have any doubts" during deliberations, he said in a statement reported by the Guardian. "Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses and what the prosecution presents, I thought it was enough proof that she [Clancy] knew exactly what she was doing and planned."

Jury foreperson Roni Carlson gave a different account of how close the jury came to a unanimous verdict. She told NBC10, as reported by the Guardian, that the holdout "admitted he had reasonable doubt, and I started filling out the forms, I was so excited." "There were three forms I had to fill out and I started filling them out, I wrote my signature on each one, and then he said: 'But I'm still not going to say that she's not guilty by reason of insanity.'"

The dispute over what actually happened in that jury room — and whether the holdout was candid about his position — is now part of the record Sullivan says he will not reopen.

What happens next

Clancy is due back in Plymouth Superior Court on Nov. 16, 2026, for a status hearing. Sullivan has said he's inclined to set a trial date for March 2027, though the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office has still not formally committed to retrying the case.