Judge denies Lindsay Clancy’s motion for required finding of not guilty in murder case

This browser does not support the video element.

PLYMOUTH, Mass. — A judge has denied Lindsay Clancy’s motion for a required finding of not guilty, ruling that prosecutors presented enough evidence for a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy committed the killings of her three children and was criminally responsible for her actions.

In a decision issued Thursday, Plymouth Superior Court Judge William F. Sullivan rejected the defense request to dismiss the three murder indictments against the Duxbury mother. The order clears the way for prosecutors to move forward with a retrial after a mistrial was declared last month.

The defense argued that the Commonwealth’s evidence was insufficient in two key areas: proving the identity of the person who killed the children and proving Clancy was criminally responsible at the time of the deaths.

Judge Sullivan disagreed.

The ruling notes that prosecutors presented physical and circumstantial evidence showing Clancy was alone with her children, Cora, Dawson, and Callan, on Jan. 24, 2023, while her husband, Patrick Clancy, left the family’s home to pick up takeout food and medication. Surveillance videos corroborated Patrick Clancy’s account of his trip to a Plymouth CVS and restaurant, according to the decision.

The judge recounted evidence that when Patrick Clancy returned home, he discovered blood in an upstairs bedroom and later found Clancy injured outside the home beneath an open window. After calling 911, he found the children in the basement with exercise bands around their necks. Medical examiners testified that the children died from asphyxia or complications related to mechanical asphyxia.

Sullivan ruled that the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy committed the charged crimes.

The judge also rejected the defense challenge regarding criminal responsibility.

During trial, both the prosecution and defense presented expert testimony that Clancy suffered from a serious mental illness at the time of the killings. However, Sullivan wrote that mental illness alone does not preclude a finding of criminal responsibility.

Three expert witnesses called by the prosecution testified that Clancy did not lack the capacity to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct and did not lack the capacity to conform her actions to the requirements of the law, the judge noted.

While defense experts disagreed with those conclusions, Sullivan noted that a jury must decide how much weight to give conflicting expert testimony. He ultimately found that the prosecution’s evidence was sufficient to support a finding of criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.

The ruling marks the latest development in the high-profile case.

The next Clancy hearing is scheduled for November.

Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.

Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW