A Massachusetts judge has rejected Lindsay Clancy’s request to dismiss the murder case against her on double-jeopardy grounds, clearing the way for a possible retrial in the deaths of her three young children. Legal experts say prosecutors could have a stronger chance of securing a conviction the second time around.
“Because the Court concludes that there was a manifest necessity for a mistrial based on the jury’s deadlock, a retrial on the murder indictments does not violate Clancy’s right not to be placed in double jeopardy,” Judge William Sullivan wrote in a 17-page order and memorandum released Monday.
Clancy’s 26-day trial ended in a deadlocked jury on Sept. 4. Jurors later said publicly that 11 supported her insanity defense, while one juror favored a conviction for first-degree murder in what the holdout described as the “methodical” killings of Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months.
Judge William Sullivan indicated he was preparing to declare a mistrial before giving Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney one hour to appeal after jurors said they could not reach a verdict Friday, Sept. 4, 2026, in Plymouth, Massachusetts. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
Had Sullivan granted the motion, Clancy would have been barred from facing a second trial, according to Randolph Rice, a trial attorney and former prosecutor who is not involved in the case.
Instead, the ruling gives prosecutors an opportunity to reassess the first trial and determine what may have gone wrong, Rice said.
“I think there’s a real possibility that D.A. [Tim] Cruz says, ‘We’re going back to trial … and we have learned from our mistakes.’”
One possible lesson, Rice said, is that Plymouth County prosecutors may not have shown jurors enough empathy while presenting their case, particularly after 11 of the 12 jurors rejected the prosecution’s position.
It remains uncertain what a second trial would look like. Prosecutors have not publicly said whether they would pursue the same charges or seek different ones.
Lindsay Clancy looks toward jurors as Judge Sullivan asks them to continue deliberating for a sixth day during her murder trial Thursday, Sept. 3, 2026, in Plymouth, Massachusetts. (Pool Photo by Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger)
Jurors began deliberating Aug. 27. On Sept. 1, they sent their first of several notes saying they had reached an impasse.
“After many hours of deliberation, we are unable to come to a unanimous verdict,” the first note stated, according to Sullivan. The judge instructed them to continue their discussions.
The jury sent a similar note Sept. 2. Without opposition from either side, Sullivan then gave the panel what is known as a Tuey-Rodriguez charge. The instruction urges jurors in a deadlocked case to reconsider their views with open minds while emphasizing that they should not abandon sincerely held beliefs simply to reach a verdict.
On Sept. 3, Sullivan received another note: “A member of the jury is unable to follow the instructions regarding reasonable doubt. How should we proceed?”
Michael P. Desronvil was the juror whose refusal to join the other 11 panel members resulted in a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. (Fugitive TV)
Sullivan wrote that he doubted the holdout was “genuinely” unable to follow the reasonable-doubt instruction. He decided to conduct a “limited inquiry” into whether each juror could follow the law.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: Grandmother Shot Grandson and Kept Firing During His Desperate 911 Call: "I'm Gonna Die" – NewsFinale
Prosecutors opposed questioning the jurors, while the defense asked that the holdout be replaced by an alternate. The defense also asked Sullivan to have the foreperson explain the meaning of the latest note. Prosecutors objected, saying such a question would improperly interfere with the jury’s deliberations. Sullivan agreed with the Commonwealth and instead asked each juror, “Are you able to follow my instructions on the law that were given to you earlier in the trial?”
District Attorney Timothy Cruz leaves Plymouth Superior Court in Plymouth, Massachusetts, Thursday, Sept. 3, 2026. (David McGlynn for News Media)
According to Sullivan, every juror answered “affirmatively and credibly.”
The prosecution and defense agreed that Sullivan should again instruct the full jury on reasonable doubt, and he did so. Afterward, however, Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, renewed his request to replace the holdout with an alternate juror. Sullivan denied that request.
Later Sept. 3, the foreperson sent another note directly accusing the holdout of disregarding reasonable doubts about the case, Sullivan wrote.
Callan, left, Dawson and Cora Clancy. The three children were killed at their home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in January 2023. (Lindsay Marie Clancy/Facebook)
“[Juror Doe] has made statements acknowledging doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states,” the foreperson wrote. “This is why we cannot come to a unanimous decision.”
The jurors were dismissed for the day. Before deliberations resumed Sept. 4, Sullivan and attorneys from both sides discussed the latest note. The judge again instructed the jury on reasonable doubt and the obligation to follow the law, and told members that future notes should not identify anyone’s vote by juror number. Two hours later, with no progress reported in the jury room, Sullivan said he intended to declare a mistrial despite Reddington’s objection.
Sullivan granted a one-hour stay while the defense appealed to the state Supreme Judicial Court. A single justice summarily rejected the emergency request, after which Sullivan declared a mistrial.
Clancy’s attorneys later asked the court to dismiss the case on double-jeopardy grounds. They argued that the mistrial was not required by “manifest necessity” and that holding a new trial would therefore violate Clancy’s rights under the Fifth Amendment.
“Clancy contends that there was no manifest necessity for a mistrial because the Court failed to consider the alternative of inquiring into the meaning of the foreperson’s notes and questioning Juror Doe to determine whether there was good cause to discharge Juror Doe,” Sullivan wrote.
Sullivan denied that motion Monday.
Juror Doe is Michael Desronvil, who later identified himself in an interview with Fox News and said he had never doubted his view that Clancy was guilty.