What’s next for Lindsay Clancy after judge denies motion for not guilty verdict

Greg Derr/Pool/The Patriot Ledger/AP

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.

Lindsay Clancy holdout juror speaks out

The trial garnered national attention, sparking discussion about maternal mental 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 mental state at the time.

A prosecutor called the defense argument “laughable.”

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.

Patrick Clancy opens up about the loss of his three children

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 killing her children, prosecutors allege , she then tried to kill 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 kill 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 killing 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.

格雷格·德尔/Pool/《爱国者纪事报》/美联社

负责审理林赛·克兰西谋杀案的法官驳回了她旨在避免重审的动议之一。

克兰西还有一项驳回此案的动议正在法院审理中，而马萨诸塞州普利茅斯县的地方检察官尚未承诺对她提起重审。

克兰西在审判后提出的动议（在刑事审判中很常见）要求法官作出无罪判决，理由是检方没有提出足够的证据来说服陪审团排除合理怀疑地认定她杀害了自己的孩子。

克兰西的律师凯文·雷丁顿在上个月因陪审团无法达成一致而宣告流审后，提交了这份动议。陪审团报告称，经过六天的审议，他们以11比1的票数陷入僵局。

持反对意见的陪审员林赛·克兰西发声

这场审判引起了全国关注，引发了关于孕产妇心理健康和产后女性可用资源的讨论。克兰西每天都有身着粉色服装的支持者到庭，她在网上也拥有众多追随者。

周二，雷丁顿和检察官在威廉·沙利文法官面前就该动议进行了辩论。

雷丁顿在庭审中表示，检方未能证明克兰西在 2023 年 1 月杀害了她的三个孩子——5 岁的科拉、3 岁的道森和 8 个月大的卡兰——这一说法似乎与他在审理此案时所作的陈述相矛盾。

雷丁顿周二在法庭上表示，克兰西从未真正承认杀人，但对克兰西家孩子的死因却没有进行全面调查。“他们只是立即认定这个女人有罪。”

他还表示，如果这还不够，联邦政府也没有充分证明克兰西应该因当时的精神状态而对这些杀人事件承担刑事责任。

检察官称辩方的论点“荒谬可笑”。

苏利文法官当时没有当庭作出裁决，而是在周四发布了一份书面命令，驳回了辩方的动议。

“就谋杀罪的构成要件以及涉嫌犯罪者的身份而言，联邦政府在主审中提出的证据……足以​​让任何理性的事实认定者在排除合理怀疑的情况下信服。”沙利文写道。

在马萨诸塞州，要求作出无罪判决的动议是辩方请求法官作出无罪判决，因为控方的证据在法律上不足以让陪审团做出有罪判决。

批准此类申请的门槛很高，因此通常会被拒绝。

法官必须以对控方最有利的方式看待审判证据，而辩方必须向法庭证明，控方未能提供足够的证据，使一名理智的陪审员能够认定控方已在排除合理怀疑的情况下证明了犯罪的每一个要素。

帕特里克·克兰西敞开心扉谈及失去三个孩子的悲痛

在审判中，雷丁顿辩称，克兰西在杀害孩子时处于产后精神病状态，不应为孩子的死亡承担刑事责任。

检方指控，她在杀害自己的孩子后，试图自杀，割伤了自己的脖子和手腕，然后从窗户跳下。

周二听证会结束后，当被问及他现在是否断言克兰西没有杀害她的孩子时，雷丁顿表示，他的论点并不新鲜，他一直质疑检方在该案中的证据。

“这并非什么高深莫测的科学。问题在于他们无法证明存在合​​理理由。”

在审判中，雷丁顿告诉陪审团，克兰西不应该为杀害自己的孩子承担刑事责任，因为她当时处于产后精神病状态。

本周早些时候，沙利文表示，他将在 11 月 2 日举行的下一次听证会上听取辩方提出的驳回此案动议的辩论，该动议涉及双重危险和其他与拒绝陪审员有关的问题。

法官还表示，他希望安排第二次审判的日期。

雷丁顿表示，如果他们就重审日期达成一致，由于案件积压，他6月之前无法出庭受审。

普利茅斯县地方检察官蒂莫西·克鲁兹和克兰西的辩护团队都拒绝就任何正在进行的认罪协商公开发表评论。