Lindsay Clancy May Not Face A Jury Again Until March 2027 For Killing Her Three Kids
Lindsay Clancy walked out of a Massachusetts courtroom in September with a deadlocked jury and no verdict. Now a judge is floating a March 2027 retrial date — but prosecutors won't even say if they're going forward.
Case at a glance
- Lindsay Clancy — Defendant, accused
- William Sullivan — Judge, official
- Jennifer Sprague — Prosecutor, official
- Kevin Reddington — Defense attorney for Lindsay Clancy
Next: The parties are due back in Plymouth Superior Court on Nov. 16, when Judge Sullivan is expected to press prosecutors for an answer on whether they'll retry Clancy and, if so, to start pinning down a schedule. District Attorney Tim Cruz has said he'll "be talking more" about the path forward after that date. Sullivan himself floated March 2027 as a possible retrial window, but nothing is locked in, and Sullivan's mandatory retirement next June adds a second deadline pressing on everyone in the case.
What happened in Duxbury and in court since
On Jan. 24, 2023, Lindsay Clancy's three children — 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and an infant son, Callan — died at the family's home in Duxbury, Massachusetts. Clancy has never disputed that she killed them. She was indicted on three counts each of murder and strangulation.
Her trial ran over the summer of 2025. After seven days of deliberations, the jury told Judge William Sullivan it was hopelessly deadlocked. The split was 11-1 in favor of acquitting Clancy on grounds she was not criminally responsible. Sullivan declared a mistrial on Sept. 4.
Clancy has been back in court twice since. The first return focused on a defense motion to dismiss the charges on double jeopardy grounds. On Monday, Nov. 2, the case returned again, with Judge Sullivan denying three significant defense motions and asking prosecutors directly whether they intend to retry Clancy.
Who's at the center of this case
Lindsay Clancy, 36, is the mother accused of killing her three children. Her defense has argued throughout that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time and lacked criminal responsibility for her actions.
Patrick Clancy, her husband, was the first witness to testify at the criminal trial. He has separately filed a wrongful death lawsuit against his wife's mental health providers, alleging negligent treatment contributed to the deaths.
Judge William Sullivan of Plymouth Superior Court is presiding over the criminal case. He faces mandatory retirement in June next year, a deadline defense attorney Kevin Reddington has cited as a reason to move quickly. Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague represents the Commonwealth; Kevin Reddington and Martin G. Weinberg represent Clancy. Michael Desronvil was the lone holdout juror in the first trial, and Roni Carlson served as the jury's foreperson.
"We're not at that point yet," — Jennifer Sprague, Plymouth County assistant district attorney, on whether the Commonwealth will retry Lindsay Clancy.
What the record says: charges, the mistrial, and the motions just decided
Clancy faces three counts of murder and three counts of strangulation, one set for each child. No plea deal or conviction has resolved those charges; the first trial ended without a verdict.
At the Nov. 2 hearing, Sullivan denied three motions the defense had filed, according to WCVB, though the specific grounds of the earlier double jeopardy motion — argued at a prior hearing — remain under advisement in at least one respect: Sullivan did not immediately rule on that motion when it was argued, per The Guardian. The defense's double jeopardy argument contends that retrying Clancy would be unconstitutional because the judge allegedly failed to adequately investigate whether the holdout juror was following the rules during deliberations.
Sullivan has scheduled the parties to return Nov. 16 to discuss scheduling for a possible retrial. He floated March 2027 as a potential date, but stressed no final decision has been made, since prosecutors have not yet said whether they will pursue a second trial at all.
What each side has said
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague has been direct about where the Commonwealth stands: "We're not at that point yet," she said when Sullivan asked whether prosecutors planned to retry Clancy, according to WCVB and The Ramapo News. At an earlier hearing, Sprague argued the holdout juror's vote reflected genuine disagreement, not misconduct: "It is clear from the record that this juror did not refuse to deliberate," she said, according to The Guardian. "He refused to agree."
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington has pushed hard for speed. "I want a trial, and I want it with you, and I want it this spring," he told Judge Sullivan, per WCVB. He has also argued that further delay risks losing Sullivan to retirement and warned the court he won't accept Clancy sitting in custody indefinitely: "I am not going to have this woman sit incarcerated for the next year or two or three," he said, according to The Guardian.
During trial, prosecutors argued Clancy "acted intentionally, rationally and swiftly" when she killed her children, while acknowledging she had mental health problems. The defense maintained she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and did not understand her actions were wrong.
The holdout juror, Michael Desronvil, said after the mistrial that he had no doubts about Clancy's guilt: "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," he said, per The Guardian. Jury foreperson Roni Carlson described the moment the holdout changed course mid-vote, telling NBC10: "He admitted he had reasonable doubt, and I started filling out the forms, I was so excited... and then he said: 'But I'm still not going to say that she's not guilty by reason of insanity.'"
What Vinnie has said about this case
“When we watched Lindsay Clancy's criminal case, there was a theme that came from Kevin Reddington and it was a theme that everyone talked about that Lindsay Clancy's doctors were horrific.”
Vinnie Politan on his show, “Patrick Clancy's Lawsuit Is Already in Trouble” (October 28, 2026)
“Lindsay Clancy loses again and loses in a big way inside of the courtroom and this is now becoming a routine here for Kevin Reddington.”
Vinnie Politan on his show, “Lindsay Clancy Loses Again” (October 26, 2026)
What happens next
The parties are due back in Plymouth Superior Court on Nov. 16, when Judge Sullivan is expected to press prosecutors for an answer on whether they'll retry Clancy and, if so, to start pinning down a schedule. District Attorney Tim Cruz has said he'll "be talking more" about the path forward after that date. Sullivan himself floated March 2027 as a possible retrial window, but nothing is locked in, and Sullivan's mandatory retirement next June adds a second deadline pressing on everyone in the case.
How this plays in court
A prosecutor looking at this record sees a case that was never about whether Lindsay Clancy caused her children's deaths — she's never disputed that. It was about intent, and an 11-1 jury split toward acquittal tells the Commonwealth that eleven people believed the state proved she acted knowingly. That's a number prosecutors can work with twice. The holdout, Michael Desronvil, said after the trial that he had no doubts about her guilt but wouldn't go along with a not-guilty-by-insanity verdict for other reasons — which is why Assistant DA Jennifer Sprague argued in court that he 'refused to agree,' not that he 'refused to deliberate.' That distinction matters enormously for double jeopardy purposes, because a hung jury from a holdout who was simply unconvinced is the classic case where a retrial is allowed.
The defense's strongest card right now isn't insanity — it's delay and juror conduct. Martin Weinberg and Kevin Reddington are arguing the judge should have dug deeper into notes from the jury foreperson suggesting a juror wasn't following instructions, and that further questioning might have surfaced grounds to remove Desronvil and let deliberations continue toward a possible acquittal. If an appellate court ever found Sullivan should have investigated further, that's the kind of issue that can unwind a mistrial finding after the fact. It's also why Reddington is pushing so hard for research into whether Desronvil used his phone during deliberations.
A jury weighing a retrial will again have to resolve the same two competing narratives that produced the 11-1 split the first time: prosecutors' claim that Clancy 'acted intentionally, rationally and swiftly,' versus the defense's postpartum psychosis theory. Nothing in this round of hearings changes the medical evidence that drove the original deadlock — it changes the clock. Every month the Commonwealth waits to decide whether it wants that second trial is a month the defense can point to as proof the state itself isn't confident it can do better than 11-1 the next time around.
The gag order fight and the sparring over using a holdout juror's name in open court are not sideshows — they go to whether this case can even seat an untainted jury in Plymouth County a second time, given how much local and national coverage the first trial and its aftermath have generated. If Sullivan grants Sprague's request to restrict public statements, that reshapes what Reddington and Weinberg can say outside the courtroom while the Commonwealth decides its next move.
- The Ramapo News: Lindsay Clancy May Not Face A Jury Again Until March 2027 For Killing Her Three Kids
- WCVB: Judge denies motions in Clancy case, clearing path for decision about retrial
- WJCL: Lindsay Clancy may testify in Patrick Clancy's wrongful death lawsuit, attorney says
- The Guardian: Lindsay Clancy back in court seeking to dismiss murder charges after mistrial