Connecticut woman to face retrial for strangling three children

Lindsay Clancy will stand trial again for the strangulation of her three young children, prosecutors said on Monday.

The announcement ended a long morning hearing in which both sides argued over three legal motions. Judge William Sullivan did not immediately rule on any of the requests. He indicated that he will decide on them at a future session.

Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague confirmed that the state plans to retry the case. She stated that the prosecution is waiting for the outcome of the pending motions to determine the next steps. Clancy is 36 and grew up in Wallingford, Connecticut. She is accused of killing her children at their home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in January 2023.

Her defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, urged the judge to schedule the new trial for this spring. He wants the case concluded before Sullivan retires. Sullivan set a hearing for November 16 at 9 a.m. The parties are expected to select a trial date at that time, depending on the judge's rulings.

The central dispute involves a motion to dismiss the charges. Clancy's lawyers argue that a retrial violates the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. This rule generally stops a person from being tried twice for the same offense. The defense claims Sullivan declared a mistrial without manifest necessity, which is the standard required to allow a second trial.

Prosecutors countered that Sullivan declared the mistrial as a last resort. They noted the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict. The defense argues Sullivan should have investigated the behavior of one juror more thoroughly. They believe this could have allowed the court to dismiss that juror instead of voiding the entire trial.

The problematic juror is Michael P. Desronvil. During deliberations, the jury foreperson sent notes to the judge. One note said Desronvil could not follow instructions on reasonable doubt. A second note stated that Desronvil admitted to having doubt but refused to apply it to the verdict. The jury was deadlocked 11 to 1 in favor of not holding Clancy criminally responsible when the mistrial was declared.

Desronvil has stated that he had no doubts about Clancy's guilt. He claimed other jurors cut him off when he tried to share his theories on the case. The defense filed a motion seeking records related to Desronvil. They also requested a gag order. Sullivan placed both of these motions under advisement alongside the motion to dismiss.

At trial, Reddington argued that Clancy suffered from postpartum psychosis. He said she did not understand her actions were wrong. The motion to dismiss was drafted by Martin Weinberg, a Boston attorney. Weinberg previously represented Karen Read, who was acquitted of murder after her first trial ended with a hung jury.

Weinberg argued in the Read case that the double jeopardy standard prevented a retrial. That argument was unsuccessful. Read was later found not guilty of the crime. The current case follows a similar procedural path, with both lawyers citing the need to protect defendants from repeated trials for the same act.