Judge denies Lindsay Clancy’s long-shot bid for a not-guilty finding in children’s deaths

Judge William Sullivan denied a request from Lindsay Clancy’s attorney to find her not guilty of murder in the 2023 deaths of her three children following her mistrial last month.

In a ruling Thursday, the judge said that evidence introduced by prosecutors was “sufficient” to justify sending the case to a jury.

Kevin Reddington, Clancy’s attorney, had made the motion, known as a motion for a required finding of not guilty, numerous times throughout trial – including at the close of the prosecutors’ case and the close of the defense’s case. Each time it was denied, but as is custom, he renewed the motion following the declaration of a mistrial due to a hung jury.

In his argument, Reddington alleged that prosecutors had not presented enough evidence to prove that Lindsay Clancy was the person responsible for killing her kids, an argument that was shocking to many listening after Clancy’s defense team didn’t contest that she committed the act over the course of the trial. Reddington argued that an insufficient police investigation meant there wasn’t enough evidence to say Clancy was the one who strangled her kids.

The judge disagreed with this argument, noting in his order that Lindsay Clancy was the only person home at the time the children were killed, which was confirmed via GPS data and surveillance footage showing her then-husband and the children’s father, Patrick Clancy, out of the house.

Reddington also argued that prosecutors failed to prove that Clancy could appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions or that she was not suffering from a mental illness at the time the kids were killed. The judge said in his ruling that this was for a jury to decide, based on competing evidence from different psychological experts who testified.

“The Court finds that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and with the reasonable inferences permitted to be drawn, was sufficient to have satisfied any rational trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt as to the essential element of the defendant’s criminal responsibility,” Judge Sullivan wrote.

This is known as a Rule 25 motion and requires the judge to consider the case in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts when evaluating the evidence. Legal experts have said the motion was an uphill battle to begin with.

Reddington has filed another motion asking the court to investigate the lone holdout juror for his conduct during deliberations. The defense team has also asked the court to dismiss the case on double jeopardy grounds ahead of a potential retrial.

The next hearing date is set for Nov. 2.

In: