Judge clears path for second trial of Lindsay Clancy after deadlock

A Massachusetts judge has ruled that Lindsay Clancy can face a second trial for the strangulation deaths of her three children. This decision overturns the defense argument that she is protected by double jeopardy rights following her first trial.

Judge William Sullivan issued a 17-page order and memorandum on Monday. He determined that a manifest necessity for a mistrial existed because the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. Consequently, a new trial on the murder indictments does not violate Clancy’s constitutional rights.

The initial trial concluded on September 4 after 26 days of proceedings. The jury was deadlocked, with eleven members accepting the defense claim of insanity. One juror, identified as Michael Desronvil, wanted to find Clancy guilty of first-degree murder. Desronvil later described the killings of Cora, age 5, Dawson, age 3, and Callan, age 8 months, as methodical.

During the first trial, the jury sent multiple notes to the court explaining their inability to agree. On September 1, the jury sent its first note. Sullivan instructed them to continue deliberations. On September 2, another note arrived, and Sullivan read a Tuey-Rodriguez charge to the group. This instruction encouraged jurors to reexamine their views while reminding them not to abandon honestly held beliefs.

On September 3, a note stated that one juror was unable to follow instructions regarding reasonable doubt. Sullivan conducted a limited inquiry into each juror's ability to follow the law. The defense asked for the holdout to be replaced with an alternate. Sullivan denied this request and agreed with the prosecution that expanding on the foreperson's note would intrude into deliberations.

Later that day, the foreperson sent another note accusing the holdout of ignoring reasonable doubts. The note stated the juror acknowledged doubt but refused to apply it to the verdict as required by law. Before deliberations resumed on September 4, Sullivan gave further instructions and told the jury not to identify votes by juror number.

Two hours into resumed deliberations, Sullivan planned to declare a mistrial over the defense's objection. He granted a one-hour stay while the defense appealed to the state's Supreme Judicial Court. A single justice denied the emergency request, and Sullivan declared a mistrial. Randolf Rice, a trial attorney and former prosecutor, noted that this order allows prosecutors to address what went wrong in the first proceeding. Rice suggested prosecutors may argue they have learned from their mistakes.