Lindsay Clancy's attorney asks judge to force 'not guilty' finding
Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney renewed his push on Thursday to have the Plymouth County Superior Court throw out her triple-murder case by arguing prosecutors failed to show enough evidence to support a conviction.
Attorney Kevin Reddington filed a motion asking Judge William Sullivan to enter a finding of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility for each criminal count.
"No rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that she had no mental disease or defect when the Commonwealth's own proof established that she did," Reddington wrote in the six-page motion, obtained by ABC News.
Clancy pleaded not guilty to three murder charges for the deaths of her 5-year-old daughter Cora, 3-year-old son Dawson and infant son Callan who were strangled at the family's home in Duxbury, a Boston suburb, on Jan. 24, 2023.
The former nurse attempted suicide on the night of her children's deaths, leaving her paralyzed and in a wheelchair, according to state prosecutors.
Clancy's five-week trial ended in a mistrial on Sept. 4, after jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict following a week of deliberations.
Jury deliberations ultimately yielded an 11-1 split in favor of not guilty by reason of insanity, according to four jurors who have spoken publicly since the mistrial. Those same jurors said the holdout juror would not change his position favoring conviction, despite allegedly acknowledging reasonable doubt about Clancy's guilt.
While the newly filed motion references the 11 jurors who believed Clancy was not guilty -- as well as the holdout juror -- Reddington argued that the case should end because prosecutors failed to present sufficient evidence at trial.
During the trial, Reddington argued that Clancy killed her three children but should not be held criminally responsible for their deaths, because she was experiencing postpartum psychosis -- considered a psychiatric emergency, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists -- at the time of the killings.
Prosecutors argued that Clancy was criminally responsible for the children's deaths and was capable of understanding the severity of her actions.
Jurors in Massachusetts are instructed that in order to prove a defendant is criminally responsible for their conduct, prosecutors must "prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense," according to the Massachusetts Court System.
"This motion does not rest on the jury's division. Eleven of twelve jurors could not find criminal responsibility, and the twelfth, by the foreperson's account, acknowledged doubt and declined to apply it," Reddington wrote in the motion. "That is not the test, and Ms. Clancy does not ask the Court to count votes or to revisit the single justice's ruling. A hung jury is not a verdict; jeopardy does not terminate on a hung jury, and a mistrial ordinarily permits retrial."
Reddington argued that all the medical experts at trial -- including those called by both the defense and prosecutors -- acknowledged that Clancy suffered a "serious mental illness" and that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Clancy "retained the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform it to the law."
"The government did not present evidence that allows a juror earnestly seeking the truth to determine that the defendant's guilt on the crime was proved on each element of the offense," Reddington wrote.
Reddington requested the judge hear arguments about the motion during the next conference in the case, scheduled for Sept. 29.
A spokesperson for Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz declined to comment Thursday when asked by ABC News for a response to Reddington's motion.
Cruz has not said publicly whether he plans to retry Clancy.
"I appreciate the fact that there are strong feelings and opinions tied to this case," Cruz said in remarks outside the courthouse after the mistrial on Sept. 4. "However, our job is to set aside our feelings and focus solely on the facts. The facts are Lindsay Clancy killed her three children and the evidence suggested to us that she was in control of her actions when she committed those homicides."
