PLYMOUTH, Mass. — A judge has rejected Lindsay Clancy’s effort to have the murder charges against her dismissed following the mistrial in her first trial, ruling that putting her before another jury would not violate constitutional protections against double jeopardy.
In a sweeping set of decisions, Plymouth Superior Court Judge William F. Sullivan also rejected a defense request to obtain records and conduct a limited inquiry into the juror identified publicly as the holdout during deliberations. In a separate ruling, Sullivan denied prosecutors’ effort to restrict what Clancy’s attorneys can say publicly about the case.
Clancy stands accused in the deaths of her three children, Cora, Dawson, and Callan, who were killed at their Duxbury home in January 2023.
Judge rules mistrial was necessary
Clancy’s 26-day trial ended in a mistrial on Sept. 4, 2026, after jurors said they could not reach a unanimous verdict.
Her attorneys subsequently argued that the murder indictments should be dismissed because trying her again would violate the Fifth Amendment’s protection against double jeopardy.
Sullivan disagreed.
The judge ruled that the jury’s deadlock created the “manifest necessity” required to declare a mistrial and permit another trial.
Jurors began deliberating Aug. 27. By Sept. 2, they had deliberated for about 27 hours over four days after a trial that included 90 witnesses, multiple experts, and roughly 300 exhibits, according to the ruling.
Complications arose when the foreperson sent the judge a note saying a juror was “unable to follow the instructions regarding reasonable doubt.” Another note the following day alleged the juror had acknowledged doubt but refused to apply it to the verdict as the law required.
The juror was ultimately publicly identified as the jury’s lone holdout.
During the trial, Sullivan asked each juror whether they could follow the court’s instructions on the law. Every juror said yes. Sullivan then re-instructed the entire jury on reasonable doubt and sent them back to deliberate.
The jury eventually reported it remained hopelessly deadlocked.
Clancy’s attorneys argued Sullivan should have investigated whether there was cause to remove the holdout and replace that person with an alternate rather than declare a mistrial.
Sullivan concluded that approach risked crossing a critical line.
The judge wrote that questioning the holdout under those circumstances could have intruded into the substance of deliberations and coerced a juror whose position was already known to differ from the rest of the panel.
“The Court’s primary concern must be protecting the fairness of the proceedings and avoiding the possibility of a coerced verdict,” Sullivan wrote.
He concluded that the Commonwealth met its burden of showing a manifest necessity for a mistrial and that another trial would therefore not violate Clancy’s double-jeopardy rights.
Judge rejects effort to investigate holdout juror
In another ruling Monday, Sullivan denied Clancy’s request for an extensive collection of records concerning the holdout juror.
The defense sought records including confidential juror questionnaires, cellphone records and data, courthouse records and information concerning the juror’s alleged previous involvement with the criminal justice system. The defense also wanted the court to question the juror under oath about the truthfulness of answers provided during jury selection and alleged cellphone use during deliberations.
Media reports after the mistrial had raised allegations that the juror lied on a questionnaire about prior involvement with the criminal justice system and improperly used a cellphone in the jury room.
Sullivan ruled the requested evidence wasn’t material to Clancy’s double-jeopardy motion because information about alleged juror misconduct that surfaced after the mistrial does not change whether the judge’s declaration of a mistrial was justified based on what the judge knew at the time.
The judge also found that Clancy had not established how the material would be relevant to a retrial conducted before an entirely new jury.
Sullivan specifically raised privacy concerns about the request for the juror’s cellphone information, writing that granting it without a proper basis would amount to “an improper intrusion into this juror’s privacy” and could discourage people from serving on juries.
Judge won’t restrict defense comments to media
A third ruling dealt with the extraordinary publicity surrounding the case.
Prosecutors sought an order preventing attorneys and their agents from making statements to the media that would be substantially likely to materially prejudice the proceedings.
The Commonwealth pointed to defense statements about witnesses, Clancy herself and members of the jury, including criticism directed at the holdout juror.
Sullivan declined to impose the restrictions.
The judge found prosecutors had not sufficiently demonstrated that defense attorneys’ public comments posed the serious threat of harm necessary to justify a prior restraint under First Amendment standards.
The court denied the motion without prejudice, leaving open the possibility that prosecutors could renew the request if circumstances change.
Sullivan also wrote that he expects Clancy’s lawyers to comply with Massachusetts professional conduct rules governing attorneys’ public statements, and likewise expects prosecutors to follow the ethical rules that apply to them.
The rulings move the closely watched case another step toward a possible second trial, although Sullivan noted in the media ruling that no retrial date has been set yet.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates as more information becomes available.
Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW