Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer is questioning whether there was enough evidence to prove she killed her three children. Kevin Reddington made the argument at a Tuesday hearing, and it marks a sharp turn from the position he took during her first trial.
The jury in Clancy’s first trial split 11 to 1 in her favor. That trial ended Sept. 4 with a deadlock.
Reddington’s New Position
During the first trial, Reddington conceded Clancy killed the children but argued she was not criminally responsible due to postpartum psychosis. He now asks where the admission is.
Reddington asked, “Where is the admission? Where does she say that she did this?”
Prosecutor Shanan Buckingham called Reddington’s argument “laughable.”
The Evidence Against Clancy
Clancy, a 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse, was found badly injured and bleeding in the yard outside her home. She has no memory of what happened when she woke up in the hospital.
Her ex-husband and first responders testified she had tried to kill herself right after killing the children.
Prosecutors say Clancy knew her actions were wrong when she used exercise bands to strangle Cora (5), Dawson (3) and Callan Clancy (8 months). They also note she sent her husband to pick up medicine for one child and dinner for the family to get him out of the house that evening.
The Juror Who Wanted Conviction
Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said prosecutors have yet to decide whether to retry Clancy. Cruz told reporters outside the court, “We are going to do what we can for the children,” adding “That is what this case is about.”
Clancy’s lawyers have asked Judge William Sullivan to dismiss the criminal case and oust the one juror who favored a murder conviction. That juror is Michael Desronvil.
Desronvil has said through his lawyer he had no doubts about his stance. He told Fox News’ “Hannity”: “The whole focus has been on me, but we want to reel everything back and put the focus on the three angels,” meaning the children.
Supporters Outside Court
About a dozen Clancy supporters, most dressed in pink, waited outside court Tuesday for her arrival.
Charges against Clancy remain unresolved. She is expected to stay at a psychiatric hospital until her case is resolved.
What Comes Next
An acquittal could have led to confinement in a mental health facility. A conviction would have carried a sentence of life in prison.
| Position | Argument |
|---|---|
| Defense (Reddington) | Question whether there is enough evidence to prove she killed her children |
| Prosecution | Recalled evidence of premeditation, including sending her husband to buy medicine and dinner |
The case is at an impasse. The defense is arguing there is no admission from Clancy, while the prosecution points to evidence of planning and intent. The question of whether to retry her hangs on whether prosecutors believe they can win a conviction.
The families of the children, the community, and Clancy herself are waiting on an answer.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs neither side on the legal question of whether there was enough evidence to prove Clancy killed her children, since the paper’s stated position concerns strict punishment for violent crime rather than the standard of proof at trial. The paper’s position on violent crime is strict, certain punishment — no bail for people charged with violent crimes, no parole or early release for people convicted of them.
The paper’s position applies to the question of whether Clancy should be punished for violent acts, not to whether she admitted guilt at trial or how much evidence prosecutors presented. The article describes a split jury, a deadlocked trial, and an argument over evidence — none of which address the paper’s stated criteria for punishment.
The paper supports whatever process produces a fair, strict outcome for violent offenders, with no room for leniency. In this case, the paper’s position offers no judgment on the specific facts of the case — the evidence, the admission question, the deadlock — because those fall outside its stated scope. Readers should watch for any move toward cashless-bail or lenient-sentencing policies that might let violent offenders walk free, since the paper opposes those across the board.
Source material: “Lindsay Clancy's lawyer now questions whether she killed her 3 children,” NPR.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.