Lindsay Clancy seeks acquittal following mistrial, arguing evidence was legally insufficient

The motion comes after a jury deliberated for seven days before reporting it could not reach a unanimous verdict. According to the filing, the jury remained deadlocked despite receiving Judge William Sullivan’s Tuey-Rodriguez instructions. Reddington also noted that 11 jurors were prepared to find Clancy not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, while one juror was not. The motion also claims the jury foreperson reported that the lone holdout juror acknowledged doubt but refused to apply it under the law.

After the deadlock persisted, the court declared a mistrial on Sept. 4.

The filing notes that Clancy unsuccessfully petitioned the Supreme Judicial Court before the mistrial was declared, seeking an inquiry into the holdout juror.

Reddington argues the evidence presented at trial overwhelmingly established that Clancy suffered from a serious mental illness at the time of the killings. The motion states that all six forensic experts who testified, including experts called by both prosecutors and the defense, agreed she was mentally ill on Jan. 24, 2023. According to the filing, the dispute among experts centered on diagnosis rather than whether a mental illness existed. Prosecution experts described either a major depressive episode or bipolar II disorder with dissociation, the motion states.

Reddington also argues the Commonwealth relied heavily on evidence that Clancy was able to complete routine tasks, including driving, calling a pediatrician, sending her husband on errands, conducting internet searches, and carrying out a sequence of actions on the day of the killings. Reddington contends those actions do not establish criminal responsibility or prove she could appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct.

The filing further points to testimony that individuals experiencing psychosis can still perform familiar activities such as driving or using a computer, and that evidence of Clancy’s ability to complete everyday tasks does not negate the presence of severe mental illness.

Reddington stressed that a Rule 25 finding is warranted because if the evidence is deemed legally insufficient, the ruling would amount to an acquittal and prevent the Commonwealth from retrying Clancy. The motion asks the court to enter findings of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility on all indictments and requests that the matter be heard at a conference scheduled for Sept. 29.

“The Court should decide the question now. A required finding for insufficiency of the evidence is an acquittal that bars retrial,” Reddington wrote in the filing. “Rule 25 exists so that a case the evidence cannot sustain is not tried twice.”

Clancy’s carried out a suicide attempt immediately after the killings, cutting her wrists and neck before jumping from a second-story window. The injuries left her paralyzed from the waist down. She remains under 24-hour supervision at Tewksbury State Hospital.

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

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