Lindsay Clancy: The Post-Mistrial Fight and a Clear Case Timeline

Judge William F. Sullivan amended the impoundment orders in Commonwealth v. Lindsay Clancy (Plymouth Superior Court No. 23CR198). Redacted juror notes and the court’s written responses may be released and cited by counsel. Sidebar transcripts relating to the mistrial declaration, deliberations or juror questions on September 3–4, 2026 may likewise be released with juror identifying information redacted.

This order permits disclosure; it does not establish juror misconduct, overturn the mistrial, dismiss charges, or establish that the records have already been published. Source: October 6, 2026 decision and order supplied to Jaded Evidence.

• The jury reported that it could not reach a unanimous verdict, and Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on September 4, 2026.
• A hung jury is not an acquittal. Retrial is ordinarily possible after a mistrial, but the defense has raised two different legal paths that could bar another trial.
• The defense filed a renewed Massachusetts Rule 25 motion arguing that the Commonwealth’s trial evidence was legally insufficient to prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The defense separately moved to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds, arguing that the court had a viable alternative to declaring a mistrial: a more probing juror inquiry.
• The defense also asked the court to preserve and review jury records and to conduct a limited inquiry into one juror. Those requests contain allegations that have not been established by a judicial finding.
• At the September 29 hearing, defense counsel argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove Clancy killed the children. Prosecutors opposed that argument and cited testimonial and forensic evidence. On October 1, Judge William F. Sullivan denied the renewed Rule 25 motion, finding that the Commonwealth had presented legally sufficient evidence for a rational fact-finder to consider criminal responsibility. No new trial date has been set.
• The defense motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy and manifest-necessity grounds is scheduled for November 2, 2026.

Rule 25 asks a narrow legal question: viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, could a rational fact-finder find every required element beyond a reasonable doubt?

The defense argues that all six forensic experts agreed Clancy had a serious mental illness on January 24, 2023, although they disagreed about diagnosis and criminal responsibility. The motion says evidence that she drove, used a computer, called a pediatrician, sent her husband on errands, and acted in a sequence did not prove that she retained the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct or conform her conduct to the law.

That is the defense argument—not a ruling. At trial, prosecutors argued that her conduct reflected planning, awareness, and intentional action and that the evidence did not establish legal lack of criminal responsibility.

The defense’s September 21 motion argues that a retrial would violate double-jeopardy protections because the court allegedly had another available option before declaring a mistrial. According to the filing, the foreperson twice raised concerns about one juror’s application of the reasonable-doubt instruction. The defense says it repeatedly requested a focused inquiry and that the court’s response was too limited.

The motion does not automatically establish juror misconduct. It asks the court to decide whether a meaningful inquiry was a viable alternative and whether the absence of that inquiry defeats the legal requirement of manifest necessity.

The defense requested preservation of questionnaires, jury notes, recordings, certain court-officer and phone-related records, and other material. It also requested a limited inquiry into the juror’s questionnaire answers, reported phone use, and possible outside information.

The filing also asks to remove juror notes and sidebar transcripts from impoundment, with identifying information redacted. Any public article must distinguish these requests and allegations from facts proven after an evidentiary hearing.

September 15: A 25 mg sertraline prescription was reported filled. Public case materials describe this as the beginning of the documented psychiatric-medication sequence reviewed at trial.

Time: Not specified in the preserved records summary.

Evidence: Existing trial-evidence and civil-pleading chronology; source notes and record limitations.

Disputed information: Dispensing does not establish ingestion; the clinical significance and causation remain separate questions.

↑ Back to Treatment Timeline

October 21–26: Reported fills included lorazepam, hydroxyzine, and buspirone, with a second lorazepam dosage recorded on October 26.

Time: Not specified in the preserved records summary.

Evidence: Existing trial-evidence and civil-pleading chronology; source notes and record limitations.

Disputed information: Dispensing does not establish ingestion; the clinical significance and causation remain separate questions.

↑ Back to Treatment Timeline

November 2–16: Further reported fills included lorazepam, buspirone, and trazodone.

Time: Not specified in the preserved records summary.

Evidence: Existing trial-evidence and civil-pleading chronology; source notes and record limitations.

Disputed information: Dispensing does not establish ingestion; the clinical significance and causation remain separate questions.

↑ Back to Treatment Timeline

November 21: Fluoxetine was reported filled.

Time: Not specified in the preserved records summary.

Evidence: Existing trial-evidence and civil-pleading chronology; source notes and record limitations.

Disputed information: Dispensing does not establish ingestion; the clinical significance and causation remain separate questions.

↑ Back to Treatment Timeline

November 25: Zolpidem, mirtazapine, and clonazepam were reportedly added during the same medication-change period.

Time: Not specified in the preserved records summary.

Evidence: Existing trial-evidence and civil-pleading chronology; source notes and record limitations.

Disputed information: Dispensing does not establish ingestion; the clinical significance and causation remain separate questions.

↑ Back to Treatment Timeline

November 30: Quetiapine was reported filled after concerns about possible bipolar-spectrum illness.

Time: Not specified in the preserved records summary.

Evidence: Existing trial-evidence and civil-pleading chronology; source notes and record limitations.

Disputed information: Dispensing does not establish ingestion; the clinical significance and causation remain separate questions.

↑ Back to Treatment Timeline

December 6–13: Several diazepam fills and a 100 mg quetiapine fill were reported.

Time: Not specified in the preserved records summary.

Evidence: Existing trial-evidence and civil-pleading chronology; source notes and record limitations.

Disputed information: Dispensing does not establish ingestion; the clinical significance and causation remain separate questions.

↑ Back to Treatment Timeline

December 7: Case materials describe an evaluation at Women & Infants Hospital’s Center for Women’s Behavioral Health for severe anxiety, disturbing thoughts, and emotional distress.

Time: Not specified in the preserved records summary.

Evidence: Existing trial-evidence and civil-pleading chronology; source notes and record limitations.

Disputed information: Dispensing does not establish ingestion; the clinical significance and causation remain separate questions.

↑ Back to Treatment Timeline

December 16: Lamotrigine was reported filled.

Time: Not specified in the preserved records summary.

Evidence: Existing trial-evidence and civil-pleading chronology; source notes and record limitations.

Disputed information: Dispensing does not establish ingestion; the clinical significance and causation remain separate questions.

↑ Back to Treatment Timeline

December 19–22: Additional diazepam and quetiapine prescriptions were reported, including quetiapine ER.

Time: Not specified in the preserved records summary.

Evidence: Existing trial-evidence and civil-pleading chronology; source notes and record limitations.

Disputed information: Dispensing does not establish ingestion; the clinical significance and causation remain separate questions.

↑ Back to Treatment Timeline

January 1–5: Clancy was voluntarily admitted for inpatient psychiatric care at McLean Hospital and discharged with follow-up plans.

Time: Not specified in the preserved records summary.

Evidence: Existing trial-evidence and civil-pleading chronology; source notes and record limitations.

Disputed information: Dispensing does not establish ingestion; the clinical significance and causation remain separate questions.

↑ Back to Treatment Timeline

January 5–23: Reported prescription fills included trazodone, lorazepam, diazepam, and amitriptyline on different dates. Outpatient follow-up and medication adjustments continued.

Time: Not specified in the preserved records summary.

Evidence: Existing trial-evidence and civil-pleading chronology; source notes and record limitations.

Disputed information: Dispensing does not establish ingestion; the clinical significance and causation remain separate questions.

↑ Back to Treatment Timeline

January 24: Cora, Dawson, and Callan were fatally injured. Clancy also sustained life-threatening injuries in a suicide attempt and was later left paralyzed from the waist down.

Time: Not specified in the preserved records summary.

Evidence: Existing trial-evidence and civil-pleading chronology; source notes and record limitations.

Disputed information: Dispensing does not establish ingestion; the clinical significance and causation remain separate questions.

↑ Back to Treatment Timeline

February 7, 2023: Clancy was arraigned from Brigham and Women’s Hospital while receiving treatment for injuries sustained on January 24.

Time: Exact time not established here.

Evidence / source: Preserved filing references and reporting · Main source-document section.

Disputed information / limits: A motion states requested relief; a reported jury account is not a verdict or a judicial finding of misconduct.

↑ Back to Timeline

September 15, 2023: A Plymouth County grand jury returned indictments charging three counts of murder and three counts of strangulation. The strangulation counts were later dismissed after the Commonwealth filed a notice of nolle prosequi.

Time: Exact time not established here.

Evidence / source: Preserved filing references and reporting · Main source-document section.

Disputed information / limits: A motion states requested relief; a reported jury account is not a verdict or a judicial finding of misconduct.

↑ Back to Timeline

July 20, 2026: Jury selection began in Plymouth Superior Court.

Time: Exact time not established here.

Evidence / source: Preserved filing references and reporting · Main source-document section.

Disputed information / limits: A motion states requested relief; a reported jury account is not a verdict or a judicial finding of misconduct.

↑ Back to Timeline

August 27: Jury deliberations began.

Time: Exact time not established here.

Evidence / source: Preserved filing references and reporting · Main source-document section.

Disputed information / limits: A motion states requested relief; a reported jury account is not a verdict or a judicial finding of misconduct.

↑ Back to Timeline

September 2: The jury reported difficulty reaching agreement and received a Tuey-Rodriguez instruction encouraging continued deliberation without requiring any juror to surrender an honestly held view.

Time: Exact time not established here.

Evidence / source: Preserved filing references and reporting · Main source-document section.

Disputed information / limits: A motion states requested relief; a reported jury account is not a verdict or a judicial finding of misconduct.

↑ Back to Timeline

September 3–4: The court received additional jury notes. The defense requested further inquiry into whether one juror was following the reasonable-doubt instruction. The court questioned jurors more generally and declined the defense’s requested focused inquiry.

Time: Exact time not established here.

Evidence / source: Preserved filing references and reporting · Main source-document section.

Disputed information / limits: A motion states requested relief; a reported jury account is not a verdict or a judicial finding of misconduct.

↑ Back to Timeline

September 4: The jury reported it could not reach a unanimous decision. The court declared a mistrial over the defense’s objection.

Time: Exact time not established here.

Evidence / source: Preserved filing references and reporting · Main source-document section.

Disputed information / limits: A motion states requested relief; a reported jury account is not a verdict or a judicial finding of misconduct.

↑ Back to Timeline

September 10: The defense filed a renewed Rule 25 motion seeking findings of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.

Time: Exact time not established here.

Evidence / source: Preserved filing references and reporting · Main source-document section.

Disputed information / limits: A motion states requested relief; a reported jury account is not a verdict or a judicial finding of misconduct.

↑ Back to Timeline

September 18: The defense filed a motion to preserve juror records, obtain the juror questionnaire and related material, and conduct a limited inquiry.

Time: Exact time not established here.

Evidence / source: Preserved filing references and reporting · Main source-document section.

Disputed information / limits: A motion states requested relief; a reported jury account is not a verdict or a judicial finding of misconduct.

↑ Back to Timeline

September 21: The defense filed its double-jeopardy motion to dismiss and a separate request concerning access to juror notes and sidebar discussions.

Time: Exact time not established here.

Evidence / source: Preserved filing references and reporting · Main source-document section.

Disputed information / limits: A motion states requested relief; a reported jury account is not a verdict or a judicial finding of misconduct.

↑ Back to Timeline

September 29: The court heard argument on the renewed Rule 25 motion. Defense counsel argued that the evidence was insufficient; prosecutors opposed the motion and pointed to testimonial and forensic evidence.

Time: Exact time not established here.

Evidence / source: Preserved filing references and reporting · Main source-document section.

Disputed information / limits: A motion states requested relief; a reported jury account is not a verdict or a judicial finding of misconduct.

↑ Back to Timeline

October 1: Judge William F. Sullivan denied the renewed Rule 25 motion, ruling that the Commonwealth presented legally sufficient evidence for a rational fact-finder to consider criminal responsibility. At the time of this earlier entry, the separate double-jeopardy motion was pending; Judge Sullivan denied it November 9, 2026.

Time: Exact time not established here.

Evidence / source: Preserved filing references and reporting · Main source-document section.

Disputed information / limits: A motion states requested relief; a reported jury account is not a verdict or a judicial finding of misconduct.

↑ Back to Timeline

Read the preserved October 6 order summary and October 7 motion and exhibits.

Limits: Disclosure permission is distinct from a finding of misconduct; the motion is a request for relief.

Holdout juror Michael Desronvil said he considered Clancy’s conduct methodical, had no reasonable doubt and answered the jury-selection questions truthfully. He disputes allegations that he expressed doubt or refused to follow the law. These public statements are not judicial findings and do not decide the pending motions. Associated Press interview report · Washington Post jury-selection report · Main case-file update.

November 2: The defense motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy and manifest-necessity grounds is scheduled for hearing.

Time: Exact time not established here.

Evidence / source: Preserved filing references and reporting · Main source-document section.

Disputed information / limits: A motion states requested relief; a reported jury account is not a verdict or a judicial finding of misconduct.

↑ Back to Timeline

Established in the public record

• The trial ended in a mistrial after the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict.
• The defense filed a renewed Rule 25 motion, a motion to dismiss, and jury-record/inquiry requests.
• The experts disputed diagnosis and legal criminal responsibility.
• Clancy remains charged unless and until a court enters a dispositive ruling.

Not established by the filings alone

• That a juror lied, committed misconduct, or relied on outside information.
• That any medication caused the killings.
• That a clinical diagnosis automatically satisfies—or defeats—the Massachusetts criminal-responsibility standard.
• That the October 1 Rule 25 ruling resolved the separate motion to dismiss or determined whether there will be a retrial. Those issues remain pending.

Usually, yes after a hung jury—but that is not the end of the analysis here. A deadlocked jury ordinarily permits retrial because no final verdict was reached. The defense is arguing that this mistrial was different: Judge Sullivan declared it over the defense objection, and the defense contends the court had a reasonable alternative—further inquiry into whether one juror was actually applying the reasonable-doubt instruction.

November 9 ruling: Judge Sullivan found manifest necessity for the mistrial because the jury was deadlocked. He rejected the defense’s argument that further inquiry into the holdout juror was required before ending the trial. The defense may seek appellate review. The Commonwealth argued that the jury was genuinely deadlocked after extended deliberations and that the mistrial was legally justified.

The October 1 denial of the renewed Rule 25 motion did not decide this issue. Rule 25 addressed whether the Commonwealth presented legally sufficient evidence. The pending motion to dismiss asks a separate constitutional question about the mistrial itself. The next scheduled hearing is November 2, 2026.

That distinction matters. A court can conclude that the evidence was sufficient for a jury to consider and still separately decide whether double-jeopardy principles permit the Commonwealth to put Clancy through another trial.

This is no longer only a debate about what happened on January 24, 2023. It is now also a record-based dispute about evidentiary sufficiency, the constitutional limits on retrial, the handling of a deadlocked jury, and what courts may examine after deliberations end.

The responsible approach is to keep four questions separate: What diagnosis best fits the clinical record? What symptoms existed at the time? What does Massachusetts law require for criminal responsibility? And did the first trial produce legally sufficient evidence under that standard? Those questions overlap, but they are not interchangeable.