The trial to decide whether Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible for strangling her three children in 2023 ended in a mistrial Friday. Jurors were unable to reach a consensus after weeks of conflicting testimony about her post-pregnancy mental health and seven days of deliberations.
Clancy, a 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse, remains charged with murder. She will continue to be held in a psychiatric hospital until the case is resolved. Attorneys on both sides now have several options as they consider the next steps.
A Hearing Could Shape What Happens Next
Judge William Sullivan scheduled a hearing for Sept. 29. During that proceeding, defense attorney Kevin Reddington is expected to ask the judge to declare Clancy not guilty , a long-shot move that is unlikely to succeed.
The hearing could also reveal whether prosecutors will pursue a second trial, seek a plea deal, or drop the case entirely, though dropping the charges remains unlikely. Sullivan noted that everyone involved , from attorneys to witnesses to court administrators , would need to coordinate their schedules for a potential new trial.
Clancy’s Defense and Postpartum Psychosis Claims
Clancy does not deny strangling her children at their home south of Boston. She claims postpartum psychosis drove her actions. After the killings, her husband found her badly injured in the yard, where she landed after jumping from a second-story window. The fall left her paralyzed from the waist down.
Prosecutors, however, argue she knew exactly what she was doing.
If you or someone you know needs help, the national suicide and crisis lifeline in the U.S. is available by calling or texting 988.
Prosecutors Will Weigh Multiple Factors
Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said there would not be an immediate decision about a second trial. He emphasized that his goal was always “getting justice for those three little babies.”
“This case was about Lindsay Clancy and what she did … the cruel and calculated killing of three innocents,” Cruz said shortly after court ended on Friday. He continued, “Children were murdered and it’s our job to seek justice.”
Still, prosecutors typically weigh many considerations when deciding whether to retry a case, according to Heather Ellis Cucolo, a New York Law School professor. Those factors include the potential expense and the likely outcome.
“I know the prosecutor stated openly that he would not allow public opinion to sway his decision, which is accurate, but the prosecution serves the public,” Cucolo said. “If it is believed that justice must be served by another trial, that is something the prosecutor’s office will take into account and weigh very heavily.”
A conviction could mean life in prison for Clancy, while an acquittal might lead to confinement in a mental health facility.
The Defense Will Likely Push to Drop the Charges
Cucolo said the defense is likely to push for the charges to be dropped entirely and might also be open to a plea deal.
“But if the prosecution chooses to move forward with a trial, there’s no way to prevent that from happening,” Cucolo said.
Reddington stated in court that he believed Clancy’s constitutional rights were violated when the judge declined to remove a juror after other jurors reported he was not following the judge’s instructions on reasonable doubt. However, Cucolo noted that a mistrial cannot be appealed because it is not a final judgment.
The impact on family members is another major consideration, said Randy Gioia, a Boston-based defense lawyer who formerly supervised public defenders across the state. Gioia believes prosecutors should not put Clancy through another trial. He pointed to Reddington’s disclosure that Clancy was extremely close to an acquittal, based on a note presented to the judge by the jury foreperson.
“Why put everyone through the trauma again: 16 to 18 jurors, all the witnesses, Patrick Clancy,” Gioia said. “What’s to be served here when we’ve had a long trial and long deliberations? You don’t have a strong case. You almost lost the case.”
Attorneys Could Adjust Their Approach
It is not entirely clear how the jury reached an impasse, but Reddington suggested that just one juror stood in the way of an acquittal, claiming they were “robbed.”
“They know they were robbed by one man, for whatever his agenda was, who stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurors that were so attentive, so beautiful, so wonderful,” he said outside the courthouse. “You could see how defeated they were sitting there. I got a funny feeling they would have gone on for another week if they had to. So I hope that guy can sleep well at night.”
Jurors are under no obligation to speak with attorneys on either side, but it is common for lawyers to see if any are willing to discuss their experience, according to Cucolo. Prosecutors can use any information gathered to reassess and refine their strategy, possibly by focusing more closely on specific evidence or witnesses.
A Retrial Would Have Rippling Effects
David Meier, a lawyer representing Patrick Clancy in a lawsuit over her mental health treatment, released a statement addressing the emotional toll of the case.
“There will never be closure from the loss of the children,” Meier said. “The prospect of reliving this tragedy through another trial is extraordinarily painful , for Patrick, for his family, and for all of us.”
The statement did not indicate whether Patrick Clancy would support a second trial.
Lindsay Clancy has also filed a lawsuit over her mental health treatment. A retrial would likely force those civil cases to be put on hold, Cucolo explained.
“They would not be able to move forward for now because of concerns of possible Fifth Amendment violations,” Cucolo said, noting that anything Clancy says in a civil case could potentially be used against her in the criminal case. As a result, the lawsuits could remain in legal limbo for a year or more.