The defense attorney representing Lindsay Clancy has submitted a renewed formal motion asking the presiding judge to enter a required finding of not guilty in her murder trial, asserting that prosecutors failed to introduce sufficient evidence to justify a conviction.
Attorney Kevin Reddington filed the motion on Thursday, marking his third effort to obtain a directed verdict from Judge William F. Sullivan. The request comes in the immediate aftermath of a five-week trial that concluded without a verdict when the court declared the jury deadlocked.
Judge Sullivan had previously rejected Reddington's prior two motions for a required finding of not guilty during the trial. In those earlier rulings, the judge determined that the Commonwealth had presented adequate evidence to let the proceedings continue when viewed in the legal standard most favorable to the prosecution.
The renewed legal push follows the judge's formal declaration of a mistrial just days earlier. Sullivan dismissed the panel after concluding that the jurors were hopelessly deadlocked and had reached an impasse that prevented them from delivering a unanimous decision.
In the days since the mistrial was declared, multiple jurors stepped forward in media interviews to provide insight into their closed-door deliberations. Those jurors revealed that a single holdout on the panel thwarted an acquittal for Clancy, reportedly refusing to join the majority even after conceding to having reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case.
In the newly submitted legal filing, Reddington emphasized that his application for a directed verdict is not grounded in the specific breakdown or division of the deadlocked jury. Instead, the motion focuses squarely on what the defense characterizes as substantive deficiencies in the Commonwealth’s presentation of evidence.
Reddington argued in the filing that prosecutors fell short of introducing evidence that would permit any juror sincerely seeking the truth to conclude that the defendant's guilt had been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Clancy is facing three counts of first-degree murder in connection with the strangulation deaths of her three young children: five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callan. Throughout the legal proceedings, the underlying facts of the deaths were not contested, as Clancy never denied her physical role in taking the lives of the children.
Rather than disputing the acts themselves, Clancy’s defense team pursued a lack of criminal responsibility defense at trial. The defense maintained that Clancy was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis and was not in her right mind at the time of the incident, while prosecutors countered that she had carried out a deliberate and planned act.
Under state legal standards governing a defense of lack of criminal responsibility, prosecutors can secure a conviction through two potential avenues. The state must either establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was free of any mental disease or defect during the incident, or prove that a defendant with a mental illness still retained the substantial capacity to understand the wrongfulness of the conduct and conform behavior to the law.
Addressing the first legal requirement, Reddington highlighted that every medical and psychological expert who took the stand during the trial diagnosed Clancy with a severe mental illness, identifying either major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder. Given the consensus among all expert witnesses, Reddington argued that no rational jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy was without a mental disease or defect.
Reddington further challenged the state’s efforts to establish Clancy's mental capacity during the incident. He contended that the testimony provided by the prosecution’s expert witnesses failed to prove that she possessed the required capacity to comprehend what she was doing or appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions.
According to the defense motion, the prosecution's expert witnesses relied primarily on evidence demonstrating that Clancy was capable of performing familiar daily tasks and executing actions in a sequential order. Reddington argued that routine sequential functioning does not equate to appreciating wrongfulness or being able to conform conduct to the law, which he stressed remains the essential legal element.
To further support the lack of criminal responsibility defense, the motion directed the court’s attention to Clancy’s immediate conduct following the killings. The defense noted that she inflicted severe cuts to her own neck and wrists before jumping out of a second-story window in a direct effort to take her own life.
The motion also observed that Clancy has remained confined to an institutional psychiatric setting ever since the incident occurred. She continues to be maintained under constant one-to-one psychiatric supervision because medical staff consider her an ongoing risk for self-harm.
Reddington underscored that the procedural rule governing required findings of not guilty serves an important constitutional and legal safeguard, ensuring that cases lacking sufficient evidentiary proof are not subjected to a second trial.
Judge Sullivan is expected to hear oral arguments regarding the defense’s renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty during a scheduled court hearing on September 29.
Prior to the upcoming hearing, Reddington indicated that he plans to submit a separate motion seeking the complete dismissal of the indictment, arguing that any retrial of Clancy by prosecutors should be barred under double jeopardy principles.
Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz has not publicly announced whether his office intends to bring Clancy to trial a second time following the mistrial.
(0)