Lindsay Clancy's attorney wants to argue dismissal at next court date

Flint McColgan, Boston Herald on Oct 8, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

Lindsay Clancy’s attorney is demanding an evidentiary hearing to support her post-mistrial motions that allege undue influence on the jury and argue her charges be thrown out on double jeopardy grounds.

“Ms. Clancy requests that the Court hold an evidentiary hearing on all motions set for November 2, 2026, or, in the alternative, to continue the entire hearing to a date on which all motions can be heard together with evidence,” defense attorney Kevin Reddington wrote in the latest motion, dated Wednesday.

“She further requests that if this motion is denied, she be permitted to object to any ruling on these motions without an evidentiary hearing, and that her objection be noted on the record,” Reddington continued.

Clancy was tried over the summer for the murder of her three children Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, at their Duxbury home on Jan. 24, 2023. Plymouth Superior Court Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on Sept. 4 after the jury was unable to work through an impasse and reach a verdict.

During the trial, Clancy’s defense did not contest that she had killed the children but had instead argued that she had done so under the throes of postpartum psychosis exacerbated by an unsteady cocktail of psychiatric drugs — meaning that she was not criminally responsible for her actions.

Reddington has since the mistrial declaration filed a stream of motions. The first series argued that the prosecution had failed to prove its case and because of that Judge Sullivan was required to issue a finding of not guilty on each charge. Sullivan denied that argument.

Reddington’s current motions argue, first, that the jury was unduly influenced by outside forces and, second, that to retry Clancy would be a violation of her Constitutional protections against double jeopardy, meaning to be retried on charges for which one was already acquitted.

Reddington admitted in an email to the court dated Monday and included as an exhibit on this latest motion that these “pending motions rest, in part, on facts outside the record.” Reddington wrote that he intends to support them “through sworn affidavits and live testimony” and that he would have witnesses ready for the next hearing date of Nov. 2.

A reply from the court, as presented in the motion exhibits, stated that Judge Sullivan did not intend to take evidence on that court date. This latest motion was filed to argue that he should.

“Due process demands a hearing when a motion raises a substantial question of juror bias or outside influence,” Reddington wrote in the motion.

He added that the law places a burden on Clancy to prove “exposure to extraneous influence by a preponderance of evidence” and that “the Court cannot impose this burden on Ms. Clancy and refuse to hear her proof.”

The other pending motion argues that the case be dismissed on double jeopardy grounds based on Judge Sullivan’s alleged “error not to inquire” further based on the jury’s note of impasse and that “what such an inquiry would have revealed goes to whether adequate alternatives to a mistrial existed.”

_____