Lindsay Clancy's lawyer argues no proof she killed her children; judge takes motion under advisement

Nearly a month after a lone juror deadlocked Lindsay Clancy's triple-murder trial, her defense attorney walked into a Plymouth, Massachusetts courtroom on Tuesday and made an argument that stopped prosecutors mid-breath: there is no proof, he said, that Clancy killed her three children at all.

The claim landed as a sharp departure. Throughout the trial, attorney Kevin Reddington had argued that Clancy — a former nurse who does not dispute strangling her children with exercise bands on January 24, 2023 — was in the grip of postpartum psychosis and therefore not legally responsible for their deaths. On Tuesday, invoking Massachusetts Rule 25, he argued the Commonwealth had never presented sufficient evidence to establish her guilt in the first place.

Where's the evidence that she did this?— Kevin Reddington, defense attorney

Prosecutors were blunt. Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham told Judge William Sullivan that this was the first time Reddington had questioned in court whether Clancy killed her children, and called the argument 'laughable,' saying the evidentiary record was 'voluminous.' Buckingham also told the court that Clancy had told a hospital chaplain she was having hallucinations and had to kill the children, according to reporting from inside the courtroom.

And now, for the first time, the defendant is arguing that there's no evidence that she did this. I'd suggest to you that the entire record is voluminous as to the information supporting the fact that she did this.— Shanan Buckingham, Assistant District Attorney

Sullivan heard arguments on the motion but made no ruling, saying he would take it under advisement and issue a written decision later. He set a follow-up hearing for November 2, where he said he also wants to discuss potential trial dates — a signal that a retrial remains on the table even as its shape is undefined.

Reddington pushed back on the characterization that he had changed strategies. Speaking to Fox News after the hearing, he said he had been attacking the strength of the Commonwealth's case 'from the very beginning' and had raised it in his closing argument and in pretrial motions. Retired Massachusetts judge Carol Erskine, who has followed the case, told Fox News Digital that the Rule 25 argument was legally required given the procedural posture: 'He is arguing that [they] did not prove each and every element as required by law. It's a very nuanced argument.'

In court, Reddington pointed to what he described as investigative failures: the absence of smeared blood along Clancy's path to the second-floor window from which she jumped, and questions about crushed pills found in a cup on a nightstand. 'There was no investigation,' he said, according to Fox News. He also argued the Commonwealth had not disproved that Clancy was suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time of the killings.

The defense is also pursuing a separate double-jeopardy argument. Reddington contends that Sullivan should have investigated the holdout juror — since identified as Michael P. Desronvil — before declaring a mistrial on September 4, and that because there was no 'manifest necessity' for the mistrial, retrying Clancy would violate her constitutional protection against being tried twice for the same offense. Legal observers note that a jury deadlock generally permits a retrial, making this argument an uphill one.

Desronvil, the sole juror who voted to convict, has denied the other jurors' accounts that he refused to apply the reasonable-doubt standard. In a statement, he said he wants attention redirected to the three children who cannot speak for themselves.

Desronvil's attorney, Edward Paltzik, has told Fox News that his client 'had zero doubt' and 'rigidly applied the reasonable doubt standard.' The defense has separately sought to question Desronvil about his truthfulness during jury selection and whether he used a cellphone or received outside information during deliberations. Sullivan has impounded juror names and records; arguments on that inquiry were pushed to November 2.

Prosecutors also filed a motion Monday asking Sullivan to issue a gag order against Reddington, arguing his post-trial television interviews, his request for a presidential pardon for Clancy, and his public comments about the deliberating jurors — including referring to the holdout as 'he' at a time when only three men were on the jury — have 'inevitably tainted any further venire.' The Boston Globe and WBZ-TV filed opposition, arguing the order would restrict free speech. Sullivan deferred that motion to November 2 as well.

Reddington addressed the political dimension of the case in court, arguing that non-lawyers struggle to understand how someone can admit culpability while not being criminally responsible — and that the confusion had fueled calls for Clancy's execution from public figures he named, including the president.

Look, she did a horrible, horrible thing. Can't be worse. But you'll find out what the price to pay is. There'll be a price. It's going to be mental institution or jail or something.— Donald Trump, President

Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz, whose office has yet to announce whether it will retry Clancy, spoke briefly to reporters after the hearing. 'We are going to do what we can for the children,' he said. 'That is what this case is about.' His office could pursue first-degree murder again, downgrade to second-degree murder or manslaughter, negotiate a plea deal — potentially involving psychiatric confinement — or drop the case entirely. If prosecutors pursue certain lesser charges, Clancy could waive a jury trial and be tried by Sullivan alone.

If Sullivan were to grant the defense's not-guilty motion, or if Clancy were ultimately found not guilty by reason of insanity, she would be committed to a Massachusetts state psychiatric hospital, with the court periodically reviewing whether to keep her there. A first-degree murder conviction carries a mandatory life sentence. The next scheduled court date is November 2.

Why it matters — The judge's ruling on the not-guilty motion — and the DA's still-undecided retrial choice — will determine whether Clancy faces another trial, a plea deal, or walks free into psychiatric commitment, making the November 2 hearing a pivotal moment in one of Massachusetts' most closely watched criminal cases in years.

Sources differ on Whether Reddington's sufficiency-of-evidence argument was new: Prosecutors said it was raised 'for the first time' at the September 29 hearing (nbcnews.com) vs Reddington said he raised it 'from the very beginning,' including in closing argument and pretrial motions (foxnews.com)

Reported by theguardian.com, pbs.org, nbcnews.com, foxnews.com, dailywire.com, masslegalresources.com