Lindsay Clancy Defense Says No Evidence Ties Her to Children’s Deaths

Lindsay Clancy’s attorney has made a dramatic bid to have the case dismissed, arguing that prosecutors have presented no evidence proving she killed her three children.

The mother of three appeared Tuesday morning in Plymouth County Superior Court, Massachusetts, for the first time since her closely watched murder trial ended in a controversial mistrial earlier this month.

Wearing a short-sleeve blouse and her hair loose in soft waves, the former nurse sat in a wheelchair at the defense table. She watched as both sides argued over whether she should face a second trial and if confidential notes from the jury should be made public.

Defense lawyer Kevin Reddington told the court that the prosecution had failed to establish that Clancy killed Cora, five, Dawson, three, and Callan, who was eight months old, in January 2023.

“This entire case is based on speculation. Where is the admission? Where did she say that she did this?” Reddington asked.

Speaking emphatically in the packed courtroom, he said Clancy had been vilified by the public and politicians, including the president.

“She’s a demon and possessed and should be executed,” he said, describing what people had allegedly said about her. “This is coming from politicians, from President Trump, all the way down.”

Reddington sharply criticized the investigation into the children’s deaths and repeatedly challenged prosecutors to identify evidence linking Clancy to the killings. “Where is the evidence that she did this?” he asked.

Reddington pointed to the absence of blood on Clancy’s socks after she cut herself and jumped from a bedroom window. He also said she had no memory of killing her children when she awoke from a coma, claiming police simply told her what had happened despite alleged problems with the day’s timeline.

“It wasn’t even a horrendous investigation. There was no investigation,” the attorney said.

He argued that the alleged failures left the state without probable cause to establish that Clancy was the person responsible for the crime.

Prosecutor Shanan Buckingham dismissed the argument as “laughable,” noting that the defense had never previously advanced that position.

Reddington further maintained that prosecutors lacked enough evidence to show that the 36-year-old was criminally responsible for the deaths.

Under Massachusetts law, an insanity case hinges on two questions: whether the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offenses and, if so, whether she could still control her conduct or comply with the law despite that condition.

Since the state had not produced evidence establishing its case beyond a reasonable doubt, Reddington argued that the judge was required to find Clancy not guilty on every charge.

Buckingham countered that mental illness does not automatically prevent a defendant from committing a crime or being held criminally responsible.

Judge William Sullivan said he will take the matter under advisement and rule at a later date.

Tuesday’s hearing, which drew dozens of reporters to the courthouse, set the wheels in motion for the future of her case after a dramatic and uncertain three weeks since her first trial ended.

Clancy went on trial in July, charged with three counts of first-degree murder for killing Cora, five, Dawson, three, and Callan, eight months old, inside the family home in the wealthy suburb of Duxbury, Massachusetts, on January 24, 2023.

The 36-year-old labor and delivery nurse strangled the children with exercise bands in the basement after sending her husband, Patrick Clancy, out of the home to run errands.

She then tried to kill herself, cutting her wrists and neck and jumping from the second-floor bedroom window.

Clancy survived but was left paralyzed from the waist down.

The mother of three did not deny killing her children but pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, saying she was suffering from severe postpartum depression and psychosis at the time.

Over five weeks of testimony, jurors heard Patrick’s devastating 911 call, saw graphic photos of the children’s autopsies, learned details of Clancy’s spiraling mental health in the months leading up to the killings, and listened to dueling diagnoses from psychiatrists and mental health experts.

Outside the courthouse, the case also grew in magnitude.

Pink-clad supporters staged rallies in the parking lot, a national conversation about postpartum mental illness began, and the media following ballooned into a mob of camera crews.

But ultimately, after 38 hours of deliberations, the 12 jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict and, on September 4, a mistrial was declared.

It turned out that a lone holdout juror, identified as Michael Desronvil, refused to join the other 11 in finding her not guilty by reason of insanity.

Desronvil’s role in the trial was one of several matters that took center stage on Tuesday as the defense and prosecution faced off once again inside the courtroom, arguing a handful of motions filed by the defense since the mistrial – all aimed at avoiding a second trial.

At the start of the hearing, Judge William Sullivan tabled several motions for a later date, and several expected matters failed to come to fruition.

Arguments about the defense’s request to investigate Desronvil, a defense motion to dismiss the case on double jeopardy grounds, and a newly filed motion from the state requesting a gag order preventing Reddington from speaking out about the case were all put on pause.

MORE STORY: Zohran Mamdani vows to protect Jewish New Yorkers after Netanyahu attacks him

A follow-up hearing was set for November 2, when those matters will be argued.

No new trial date was set after both sides asked the judge to delay the matter, and Reddington said he would not be available for a retrial until June. Judge Sullivan told the lawyers to prepare to set a date at the November 2 hearing.

The prosecution also did not confirm whether or not the state plans to retry Clancy and, if so, on the same charges of first-degree murder or lesser charges.

When asked by reporters outside court, Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz said his office was still deciding its next course of action in the case.

Attorney Heather O’Connor also appeared in court on behalf of the holdout juror, Desronvil, whose conduct lies at the heart of several of the defense’s motions to be heard on November 2.

In the defense’s motion to dismiss, Reddington argued that Judge Sullivan failed to properly probe the holdout juror and the claims made by the foreperson before declaring a mistrial.

Had a thorough inquiry been made, he argued, a mistrial might have been avoided.

Reddington argued that putting Clancy on trial for a second time would be a violation of double jeopardy laws and so the judge must dismiss the case altogether.

Before the mistrial was declared, the jury foreperson sent two messages to the judge accusing the then-unidentified holdout of expressing reasonable doubt, but of refusing to apply it to the law.

At the time, Reddington called for the holdout to be struck from the case or to at least to face further questioning.

Judge Sullivan refused, and hours later, when the jury returned deadlocked again, a mistrial was declared.

Desronvil has said through his attorney Edward Paltzik that he has ‘zero doubt’ about Clancy’s guilt, based on what was described as ‘mountains of evidence.’

Paltzik, who previously represented President Donald Trump, and Reddington have repeatedly traded barbs in recent weeks.

The attorney for the holdout has branded Reddington ‘Kevin ‘Shooter McGavin’ Reddington.’ He has responded by branding Paltzik a ‘publicity-seeking opportunist.’

The war of words came after questions mounted about Desronvil’s actions in the jury room when several fellow jurors broke their silence in interviews with the media.

Several accused him of refusing to follow the law when it came to reasonable doubt while one also claimed that he was scrolling on his phone during deliberations.

It also emerged that Desronvil was arrested for domestic violence in 2021. The case was later dropped but he still had an active restraining order against him while serving as a juror in the case.

Following the claims, Reddington filed a separate motion calling for an investigation into Desronvil to determine whether he was truthful during jury selection and to probe his use of his phone during the trial.

The defense asked the court for his juror questionnaire, phone records and records around his brushes with the law.

While those matters were not addressed in Tuesday’s hearing, the newest member of Clancy’s legal team, former Karen Read attorney Martin Weinberg, argued that juror notes from the final days of deliberations and sidebar discussions should be released to the public.

Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague countered by arguing that this could have a ‘chilling effect’ on future potential jurors.

Outside court, Desronvil’s newly-appointed lawyer O’Connor told reporters he wants privacy for himself and justice for the children.

‘He’s the only one being targeted here because his decision and his vote was different than everyone else’s. People should not have to worry – just as the commonwealth said – jurors should not have to worry about coming in and having them outed because they take a stance different than everyone else,’ she said.

While the case continues to play out contentiously inside the courtroom and draw crowds to Plymouth, outside the case Patrick Clancy has spoken out for the first time.

In a sit-down with 60 Minutes following the mistrial, Clancy’s ex-husband spoke of his grief and meeting his new wife, Dr Rachel Danis.

In the interview, they revealed that they are expecting their first child together.

Clancy, meanwhile, remains in Tewksbury Hospital, where she receives round-the-clock care and is on suicide watch.

She will return to court on November 2.

While Reddington filed several motions and sat for several TV interviews, the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office did not reveal the prosecution’s plans for the case before the hearing.

Patrick Clancy said in a statement earlier this month that the prospect of a second trial was ‘extraordinarily painful.’

In a sit-down with 60 Minutes following the mistrial, he shared that he had suffered a panic attack during a break in his testimony.

Clancy’s ex-husband has taken steps to rebuild his life, marrying his new wife, Dr Rachel Danis, this April.

In the interview, they revealed that they are expecting their first child together.

Clancy, meanwhile, remains in Tewksbury Hospital, where she receives round-the-clock care and is on suicide watch.