Active case file · Massachusetts
⚖️ MA v Lindsay Clancy – Murder Trial
A record-based review of the mistrial, post-trial motions, juror questions, Massachusetts criminal-responsibility law, and the distinction between clinical illness and the legal standard.
Research status: Updated November 10, 2026 · Rule 25 motion denied October 1 · Juror-inquiry requests denied October 21 · Double-jeopardy motion denied November 9: Judge Sullivan found manifest necessity for the September mistrial because the jury was deadlocked. Retrial is legally permitted, but no new trial date or final charge selection is confirmed. Defense counsel indicated an intention to appeal; no appellate filing independently verified. November 16, 2026 is the next reported hearing for scheduling; March 2027 has been discussed, not ordered. Related civil cases remain separate and pending.
02 | Victim background
Cora, Dawson and Callan Clancy were the three children at the center of this case. The official October 2023 release identifies Cora as five, Dawson as three and Callan as eight months old at the time of the January events. Callan died after several days of hospital treatment.
Official arraignment and investigative account. The children’s identities and deaths are distinct from the disputed questions of intent and criminal responsibility.
03 | Defendant profile and documented roles
Lindsay Clancy: defendant. Kevin J. Reddington: lead defense counsel. Judge William F. Sullivan: trial judge. Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office: prosecution. Patrick Clancy: the children’s father and plaintiff in separate civil litigation.
View More — Defendant and procedural posture
Clancy remains charged following a mistrial. Her treatment history and criminal-responsibility defense are examined in the evidence sections. The mistrial did not convict or acquit her.
04 | Interactive event-by-event timeline
November 9, 2026 — Double-jeopardy dismissal denied
Judge Sullivan ruled that a deadlocked jury created manifest necessity for the mistrial and denied dismissal. The next reported hearing is November 16 for scheduling; no retrial date has been ordered. AP, November 9.
Completed events and reported future settings are identified separately.
View More — January 24–27, 2023 — Fatal injuries and investigation
The official account describes the January 24 response and Callan’s later death in hospital.
Time: Exact time not established in reviewed sources.
Evidence / source: Supporting record or dated report.
Disputed information / limits: The prosecution’s account does not resolve criminal responsibility.
View More — February 7, 2023 — Hospital arraignment
The preserved chronology records Clancy’s arraignment while hospitalized.
Time: Exact time not established in reviewed sources.
Evidence / source: Supporting record or dated report.
Disputed information / limits: A procedural step is not a verdict.
View More — July 20–August 27, 2026 — Jury selection, trial and deliberations
The companion preserves the trial sequence and start of deliberations.
Time: Exact time not established in reviewed sources.
Evidence / source: Supporting record or dated report.
Disputed information / limits: Exact session times require the trial record.
View More — September–October 2023 — Indictment and Superior Court arraignment
The original release identifies three murder and three strangulation counts.
Time: Exact time not established in reviewed sources.
Evidence / source: Supporting record or dated report.
Disputed information / limits: The original charging posture differs from the later dismissal of strangulation counts.
View More — September 2–4, 2026 — Jury notes, instructions and mistrial
The court received jury notes and declared a mistrial on September 4.
Time: Exact time not established in reviewed sources.
Evidence / source: Supporting record or dated report.
Disputed information / limits: The adequacy of inquiry remains disputed; reported jury splits are not verdicts.
View More — September 10, 2026 — Renewed Rule 25 motion
The defense requested a required finding of not guilty.
Time: Exact time not established in reviewed sources.
Evidence / source: Supporting record or dated report.
Disputed information / limits: This was requested relief; the later ruling is a separate event.
View More — September 18–21, 2026 — Jury-record requests and double-jeopardy motion
The companion preserves the record, inquiry and dismissal requests.
Time: Exact time not established in reviewed sources.
Evidence / source: Supporting record or dated report.
Disputed information / limits: Filing a motion does not establish its allegations.
View More — September 29, 2026 — Rule 25 argument
Counsel argued sufficiency; no ruling was made at that hearing.
Time: Exact time not established in reviewed sources.
Evidence / source: Supporting record or dated report.
Disputed information / limits: The historical report is followed by the October 1 disposition.
View More — October 1, 2026 — Rule 25 denial
Reporting describes Judge Sullivan’s denial of the renewed motion.
Time: Exact time not established in reviewed sources.
Evidence / source: Supporting record or dated report.
Disputed information / limits: Not a guilty verdict or a decision on the separate double-jeopardy motion.
View More — October 6, 2026 — Juror-record disclosure order
The companion retains the supplied order’s terms for redacted notes, responses and sidebars.
Time: Exact time not established in reviewed sources.
Evidence / source: Supporting record or dated report.
Disputed information / limits: Permission to release records does not establish misconduct or confirm publication.
View More — October 7, 2026 — Evidentiary-hearing request
The motion and Exhibits A and B remain in the original gallery.
Time: Exact time not established in reviewed sources.
Evidence / source: Supporting record or dated report.
Disputed information / limits: Original downloadable filing and entry number remain to be checked.
View More — October 15, 2026 — Juror’s public interview
Reporting records Michael Desronvil’s account of his vote and disputed conduct.
Time: Exact time not established in reviewed sources.
Evidence / source: Supporting record or dated report.
Disputed information / limits: A media interview is not a judicial finding.
View More — October 28, 2026 — reported future civil setting — Separate civil hearing
The preserved civil section reports a Rule 12 hearing in case 2682CV00071.
Time: Exact time not established in reviewed sources.
Evidence / source: Supporting record or dated report.
Disputed information / limits: Confirm the operative civil calendar; this is not the criminal hearing.
View More — November 2, 2026 — Completed motion hearing; rulings reserved
Judge William Sullivan heard arguments on double jeopardy, jury-related questions and a proposed gag order. No dismissal ruling was entered. Prosecutors described a retrial as likely but did not commit to pursuing one pending the judge’s decisions; the potential charges and trial setting remain unresolved. Another hearing is set for November 16, 2026, at 9 a.m.; March 2027 was floated as a possible retrial period, not a confirmed date. AP November 2 coverage.
Time: Exact time not established in reviewed sources.
Evidence / source: Supporting record or dated report.
Disputed information / limits: This is not a retrial date; no outcome is assumed.
05 | Evidence and clinical context
View More — Treatment records and medication chronology
The companion preserves the existing treatment history, reported prescription fills and clinical cautions. A fill does not establish ingestion or causation.
View More — Motions and jury records
The renewed Rule 25 motion, jury-record requests and double-jeopardy filing address different issues. Their source documents and limitations appear below.
06 | Prosecution and defense compared
View More — Commonwealth’s position
The prosecution maintains that the admitted testimonial and forensic evidence supports the charges and criminal responsibility. The preserved September 29 report records its opposition to the sufficiency challenge.
View More — Defense position
The defense has presented mental-health and criminal-responsibility evidence and pursued separate post-mistrial arguments on sufficiency, juror issues and retrial. These arguments are not themselves court findings.
07 | Courtroom and post-mistrial developments
November 9, 2026 — Double-jeopardy dismissal denied; related motions ruled upon
Judge William Sullivan denied the defense’s double-jeopardy dismissal motion, finding manifest necessity for the September 4 mistrial because the jury was deadlocked. He rejected further intrusion into jury deliberations. AP also reports denial of the prosecution’s requested gag order and the defense’s additional juror-record preservation request. This ruling permits retrial but is not a conviction or trial-assignment order. Defense counsel stated an intention to appeal; no appellate filing has been independently verified. Next reported hearing: November 16, 2026. AP · Reuters. The signed order has not yet been obtained.
September 10, 2026 — Renewed Rule 25 motion
September 10: The defense filed a renewed Rule 25 motion after the mistrial.
September 22, 2026 — Juror-inquiry and dismissal requests
September 22: National reporting described requests for juror inquiry, phone-record review, and dismissal. The underlying motions and any court orders control.
View More — September 29 — Historical courtroom report
The trial ended in a mistrial. At the September 29 hearing, defense counsel pressed the renewed Rule 25 motion and argued there was insufficient evidence proving that Clancy herself killed the children. Prosecutors opposed that argument and pointed to testimonial and forensic evidence. Judge William Sullivan did not rule, and no new trial date was set. The defense motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy and manifest-necessity grounds was subsequently heard November 2, 2026, without an immediate ruling. The next hearing is November 16; see the completed-hearing entry for the current status. Motions and attorney arguments are not court findings.
September 29, 2026 — Post-mistrial hearing
September 29: At the first hearing after the mistrial, defense counsel argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove Clancy killed the children. Prosecutors disputed that claim and cited testimonial and forensic evidence. Judge Sullivan did not rule on the renewed Rule 25 motion, and no new trial date was set.
View More — October 15 — Juror’s public account
Michael Desronvil told Fox News he based his vote on the evidence and had no reasonable doubt. Desronvil also said he answered the jury-selection questions truthfully and disputed allegations that he expressed doubt or refused to follow the law. His public account conflicts with allegations raised after the mistrial; no court has found that he lied, was biased or committed misconduct.
Associated Press: October 15 juror interview · Washington Post: jury-selection response · Reported November 2 setting.
October 21, 2026 — Juror-inquiry requests denied; dismissal motion remains pending
Latest update · October 21, 2026
Judge William Sullivan denied the defense’s requests for an evidentiary hearing, access to the holdout juror’s questionnaire, examination of his cellphone and further questioning of the juror, according to reporting published October 21.
- Double-jeopardy motion to dismiss: This was pending on October 21; Judge Sullivan denied it November 9, 2026. See the November 9 ruling under Courtroom Developments and Verdicts / Retrial.
- Next hearing: November 2, 2026, for outstanding motions—not a retrial date.
- Retrial: No prosecution decision or trial date announced in the reporting reviewed.
View More — Reported reasoning and sources
Sullivan’s reported reasoning was that information discovered after the mistrial could not determine whether declaring it was necessary at the time. He also cited limits on inquiries into jurors’ internal reasoning and deliberations. Denying these requests does not itself establish whether the alleged misconduct occurred.
The October 1 denial of the renewed Rule 25 motion is a separate ruling. At the time of this October 21 ruling the double-jeopardy challenge remained unresolved; Judge Sullivan subsequently denied dismissal on November 9.
Sources: PEOPLE, October 21; CT Insider, October 21; New York Post, October 21.
Source note: This update is based on corroborated reporting. Today’s written court order has not yet been obtained for this case file.
October 28–30, 2026 — Defense reply and newly reported jury notes
The defense filed a reply supporting dismissal on double-jeopardy grounds. October 30 reporting describes newly public wording of jury notes concerning a holdout and reasonable-doubt instructions. Those concerns are part of the disputed mistrial record; they do not establish misconduct or a constitutional bar to retrial. The defense argues the judge had alternatives to declaring a mistrial, while prosecutors maintain the deadlock justified it. The motion remained pending before the November 2 hearing. The court heard the arguments November 2 without immediately ruling; November 16 is the next reported hearing. CT Insider — October 30 jury-note report.
November 2, 2026 — Dismissal arguments heard; ruling reserved (superseded by November 9 ruling)
Judge William Sullivan heard the defense’s double-jeopardy dismissal arguments and did not immediately rule. Prosecutors indicated an intention to retry, with the precise charges and setting unresolved. Another hearing is scheduled for November 16. March 2027 was discussed as a possible retrial period, not ordered. Subsequent ruling (November 9): Judge Sullivan denied the double-jeopardy dismissal motion, finding manifest necessity for the mistrial. AP report. Reuters — November 2 courtroom report.
08 | Verdicts, retrial, sentencing and appeals
The September 4 mistrial produced no verdict. Judge Sullivan denied the renewed Rule 25 motion on October 1 and denied the separate double-jeopardy dismissal motion on November 9, finding manifest necessity for the mistrial based on the deadlocked jury. This permits the Commonwealth to pursue a retrial; it is not a finding of guilt, a sentencing decision, or a confirmed retrial date. The defense has indicated an intention to appeal, but an actual appellate filing has not been independently verified. The next reported scheduling hearing is November 16, 2026. AP, November 9 · Reuters, November 9.
View More — Preserved Rule 25 update and related reading
Related Exhibit J & Clinical Lens reading
October 1, 2026: Rule 25 Motion Denied
Judge William F. Sullivan denied Lindsay Clancy’s renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty. The ruling means the court found the Commonwealth presented legally sufficient evidence for the case to remain viable; it is not a verdict on Clancy’s guilt or criminal responsibility.
The separate defense motion seeking dismissal on double-jeopardy grounds was denied November 9, 2026, after the November 2 hearing. The ruling found manifest necessity for the mistrial; it is not a guilty verdict. AP also reported denials of the proposed gag order and further juror-record preservation request. The November 2 hearing concluded without an immediate ruling; on November 9, Judge Sullivan denied the double-jeopardy motion. The next reported hearing is November 16, 2026, at 9 a.m. No retrial date has been set. November 2 courtroom report.
Primary-source note: Jaded Evidence is seeking the written October 1 order for the source library. Until the filed order is obtained, this update relies on contemporaneous reporting from the Associated Press and other court reporters describing Judge Sullivan’s ruling.
09 | Separate civil litigation
View More — Two malpractice cases — claims, parties and source PDFs
Civil litigation: two separate malpractice cases
There are two separate civil lawsuits in Norfolk Superior Court. They overlap factually with the criminal case but are legally distinct proceedings, and the allegations in the complaints are not findings of fact.
Patrick Clancy v. Tufts et al. — 2682CV00071
Patrick Clancy filed a wrongful-death action individually and as personal representative of the estates of Cora, Dawson and Callan. The original complaint names psychiatrist Jennifer Tufts, psychiatric nurse practitioner Rebecca Jollotta, Aster Mental Health and South Shore Health. It alleges negligent treatment and medication management contributed to Lindsay Clancy’s psychiatric deterioration. The case remains pending. On October 28, 2026, Judge Michael Doolin heard arguments on the healthcare defendants’ Rule 12 dismissal motion and took it under advisement. A later reported request by defendants to supplement the dismissal record with statements from criminal defense counsel Kevin Reddington was denied by Judge Doolin, according to November 7 reporting; the signed order and exact order date have not been independently retrieved. This limited procedural ruling does not decide the underlying dismissal motion or establish negligence. The parties dispute whether Lindsay Clancy reported thoughts of harming her children; Reddington publicly denied both the claimed disclosure and any agreement that she would testify in Patrick’s civil case. NBC10 Boston, October 29 · CBS Boston, October 29.
Read Patrick Clancy civil complaint PDF →
Lindsay M. Clancy v. Tufts et al. — 2682CV00081
Lindsay Clancy filed a separate medical-malpractice action alleging failures to diagnose, coordinate and appropriately treat her worsening postpartum psychiatric condition. Her case has been amended since the original filing and now includes additional clinicians and institutions. Medical-malpractice tribunal requests have been filed by multiple defendants. The case remains pending.
Read Lindsay Clancy civil complaint PDF →
Source note: These complaint PDFs are now archived locally in the Jaded Evidence Media Library.
10 | Unresolved questions
View More — Legal, juror and clinical questions
Legal questions
- Whether the evidence legally supports the charged offenses.
- After the November 9 denial of the double-jeopardy motion, whether the defense files an appellate petition or obtains a stay.
- Whether prosecutors will formally select the charges and obtain a new trial date; the November 16 scheduling hearing is pending.
Jury questions
- What the filed motions allege about the holdout juror.
- What the questionnaire and phone evidence actually establish.
- Which claims are allegations and which are supported by court findings.
Clinical context
- Psychosis, postpartum illness, medications, and symptom chronology.
- Clinical diagnosis versus legal lack of criminal responsibility.
- Why psychiatric evidence does not automatically decide the verdict.
11 | Court records, motion gallery and sources
View More — October 7 motion and original image gallery
New: Full post-mistrial update and two timelines
Read the evidence-based breakdown of the Rule 25 motion, double jeopardy, jury records, the treatment chronology and the court timeline. The update now includes the October 6 order permitting release of redacted juror notes, responses and specified sidebar transcripts. Permission to release records does not establish that they have been published or that juror misconduct occurred.
October 7, 2026: Defense requests an evidentiary hearing
Subsequent development — October 21: The juror-inquiry requests were denied. The filing and exhibits below remain as the historical record of the defense request. Read the latest ruling update and sources.
In a motion bearing an October 7 filing stamp in Plymouth Superior Court case 2383CR00198, Lindsay Clancy’s attorney Kevin J. Reddington asks the court to hear evidence on all motions set for November 2, 2026. If the court will not take evidence that day, the defense asks that the entire hearing be continued to a single date when the motions can be heard together with evidence.
Exhibit A: Reddington’s October 5 letter says the pending motions rely partly on facts outside the existing record and proposes sworn affidavits and live testimony, with witnesses expected to be ready November 2. Exhibit B: An October 6 email from Assistant Clerk Magistrate Dawn Irving-Bissett reports that, after speaking with Judge Sullivan, he did not intend to take evidence November 2 based on what had been filed.
The defense argues that evidence is needed to address alleged extraneous influence on the jury and its claim that the mistrial lacked manifest necessity. It also argues that further inquiry into the foreperson’s note could have revealed alternatives to a mistrial. The motion states that Clancy will seek appellate review if her double-jeopardy motion is denied without a hearing.
Status distinction: These are defense arguments and requests. The supplied filing does not establish juror misconduct, dismiss the charges, grant an evidentiary hearing or change the November 2 date. A separate court ruling would be needed to establish the outcome.
Source record: Seven user-supplied images reviewed October 9, 2026: motion pages 1–4, certificate of service (page 5), Exhibit A and Exhibit B. The cover bears a handwritten circled “231”; this has not been independently confirmed as a docket-entry number. The original downloadable PDF has not yet been obtained.
Read the October 7 motion and exhibits
Click any page to enlarge it, then use the previous and next controls to read the filing in order. These are user-supplied screenshots: motion pages 1–5, followed by Exhibits A and B.
View More — October 21, 2026 order on requested evidentiary hearing (4 pages)
What the court decided: The court denied the defense request for an evidentiary hearing on the pending motions, or alternatively to continue the November 2 hearing in its entirety. The order states that the parties may still be heard on their motions at the next scheduled date. It does not, by itself, decide the separate motion to dismiss.
Record note: These are user-supplied images of the four-page order in Commonwealth v. Lindsay Clancy, Plymouth Superior Court No. 2383CR00198. Select any page to open the full-size image.
View More — Preserved source file and evidence note
- Plymouth Superior Court, Commonwealth v. Lindsay Clancy, No. 2383CR00198, renewed Rule 25 motion dated September 10, 2026.
- Associated Press: post-mistrial motions and juror-inquiry request
- NBC10 Boston: reporting on juror-screening questions
- Associated Press: fellow-juror account after the mistrial
Evidence note: Charges, motions, attorney statements, and juror accounts must be labeled accurately. A diagnosis does not establish legal insanity, and an allegation in a filing is not a judicial finding.
Attorney Career Profile | Kevin J. Reddington
Kevin J. Reddington’s legal career reaches from the 1970s to the present Clancy proceedings. Based in Brockton, his work includes serious criminal cases, psychiatric evidence, jury trials and related civil litigation. This profile follows the documented work and the particular role he held in each matter.
In this case: Reddington is Lindsay Clancy’s lead defense attorney. His career history provides context for that representation; the court must decide the pending motions on their own record.
View More — Education, practice and professional recognition
Swipe horizontally to read the full table on smaller screens.
| Period | Career milestone |
|---|---|
| 1972 | Boston College undergraduate degree, as recorded in his 1998 professional profile. |
| 1975 | Suffolk University Law School graduate; admitted to Massachusetts practice. |
| 1975–1991 | Partner at Kelly & Reddington. |
| 1991 onward | Sole practice, identified in Brockton professional listings. |
| Professional service | The 1998 profile lists American College of Trial Lawyers membership and service as a past president of the Plymouth County Bar Association. |
| 2004–2025 | Selection years listed by Super Lawyers; a professional designation, not a court finding or case-outcome measure. |
| 2016 | Listed on the MCLE homicide symposium faculty and veteran-attorney roundtable. |
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly — December 28, 1998 profile · Super Lawyers professional listing · MCLE symposium program
View More — Selected notable cases and the role he held
The following is a selected career chronology. Verdicts, retrials, pleas and post-trial proceedings are kept separate.
Swipe horizontally to read the full table on smaller screens.
| Year | Matter | Documented work and disposition |
|---|---|---|
| 1989 | Therese Rogers | Defense representation in a homicide case involving evidence of prolonged abuse; an acquittal is reported in career retrospectives. Reported career history |
| 1998 | Mo Vaughn | Defense counsel in the Red Sox player’s OUI case; jury acquittal. This was a motor-vehicle prosecution, separate from homicide work. Contemporaneous professional profile |
| 2000–2002 | Michael McDermott | Representation in the Edgewater Technology workplace-shooting prosecution; the 2002 jury returned seven first-degree-murder convictions after a criminal-responsibility defense. Appellate opinion; early representation also recorded in broadcast archive |
| 2007 / 2011 | Thomas Toolan III | Trial representation in the Elizabeth Lochtefeld homicide case. The 2011 appellate decision set aside the original convictions over jury selection and ordered a new trial. Appellate history; initial trial and later proceedings are distinct |
| 2023 | Sean Murphy | The research record identifies defense representation. An official release confirms a jury-waived verdict of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility and a return to Bridgewater State Hospital. Official disposition; full trial appearance record remains to be added |
| 2024 | Jack Callahan | Defense counsel in the prosecution concerning Scott Callahan’s drowning. The jury returned involuntary manslaughter after an eight-day trial. Official outcome; counsel identified in contemporary reporting |
| 2025 | Ingolf Tuerk | Defense representation in the death of Kathleen McLean. Courtroom reporting records a voluntary-manslaughter verdict rather than a murder conviction. Contemporary courtroom reporting |
| 2026 | Lindsay Clancy | Lead defense counsel in the three-murder-count trial. The trial ended in a mistrial; post-mistrial motions are separate from a jury verdict. Current outcome and sources |
McDermott: contemporaneous GBH broadcast archive · Callahan: contemporary report identifying Reddington’s trial role
View More — A recurring field of work: psychiatric evidence and criminal responsibility
Several matters in the career record required courts to examine mental-health evidence: the Rogers, McDermott, Murphy and Clancy cases are examples. Their records illustrate different procedural settings and results. Expert opinions, clinical diagnoses and the legal test of criminal responsibility must be considered separately.
In McDermott, the Supreme Judicial Court discusses the competing psychiatric evidence and the trial record. In Murphy, the district attorney’s release describes agreement between evaluators and a judge’s lack-of-criminal-responsibility verdict. Those proceedings provide context for the kind of evidence involved; they do not predict the resolution of Clancy’s case.
McDermott appellate opinion · Murphy official disposition · Clancy evidence sections
View More — Work beyond criminal trials: a victim’s estate in civil litigation
The federal appeal McCloskey v. Mueller identifies Reddington among counsel for the plaintiff side in litigation brought by the estate of Philip McCloskey. The case concerned claims arising from Gary Lee Sampson’s crimes. This is an example of civil representation connected to a homicide, with a different client and legal task from criminal defense.
The role recorded here is representation of the victim’s estate; it is not listed as criminal representation of Sampson.
View More — Teaching and participation in the legal profession
MCLE’s Prosecuting & Defending Homicide Cases program for April 29, 2016 lists Reddington on its faculty and veteran-attorney roundtable. The program brought practitioners together to discuss homicide litigation, forensic evidence, technology and jury selection. That record documents a professional contribution beyond a single client’s case.
View More — His role in the Lindsay Clancy proceedings
Reddington presented the defense position concerning Clancy’s mental condition and criminal responsibility, then pursued post-mistrial relief. The renewed Rule 25 motion, the double-jeopardy motion and the requests concerning jury records ask different legal questions. The October 1 denial of Rule 25 relief did not itself decide the pending retrial dispute.
His October 7 motion and attached correspondence are preserved in the documents section. They show the relief counsel requested; they are not findings that every assertion in the filing is true.
October 7 motion, exhibits and source files · Detailed post-mistrial companion
View More — How this career history was sourced
The existing Reddington research database was used to identify matters and distinguish trial representation, later proceedings and other client roles. Public court opinions, official disposition announcements, contemporary reporting and professional profiles are linked above. The database is a research index, rather than a complete register of every matter in a long career.
Original verdict forms, complete appearance records and expert rosters remain useful additions where the linked source describes only part of a case. No overall win percentage is calculated from this selection.