Lindsay Clancy Hearing on November 2, 2026 and the Double Jeopardy Motion

By Attorney Joe Serpa | Georgetown University Law Center

Lindsay Clancy returned to Plymouth Superior Court on Monday, November 2, 2026, for a hearing before Judge William Sullivan. Her lawyers asked Judge Sullivan to dismiss the murder charges on double jeopardy grounds. The Commonwealth asked Judge Sullivan for a gag order on the defense. Judge Sullivan said that he would decide the motions later and scheduled a hearing for November 16, when he intends to announce his decision on the motion to dismiss.

The Commonwealth charges Ms. Clancy with murder in the deaths of her three children in Duxbury on January 24, 2023. At trial, the defense argued that Ms. Clancy was not criminally responsible because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis. Judge Sullivan declared a mistrial on September 4, 2026, after the jury reported that it could not agree on a verdict. News reports describe the jury as divided 11 to 1 and call the one juror in the minority the holdout juror.

Judge Sullivan denied the defense’s renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty on October 1, 2026, according to NBC10 Boston and Boston 25 News.

The Double Jeopardy Motion

Defense attorney Martin Weinberg argued the motion to dismiss. Before the mistrial, the jury foreperson sent Judge Sullivan notes reporting that one juror was not following the instructions on the law. Judge Sullivan questioned each juror individually about whether the juror could follow the instructions and then repeated the instruction on reasonable doubt to the jury. Judge Sullivan also denied a defense request to replace the holdout juror with an alternate.

Mr. Weinberg argued that Judge Sullivan should have conducted a more probing inquiry after receiving the foreperson’s notes and before declaring the mistrial. According to CBS Boston and the Associated Press, Mr. Weinberg told Judge Sullivan that further questioning could have shown whether the holdout juror was following the instructions on the law. The firm’s earlier post on the Clancy jury dispute explains when Massachusetts law permits a judge to remove a deliberating juror.

Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague argued that Judge Sullivan handled the deadlocked jury correctly. Ms. Sprague wrote in the Commonwealth’s opposition that singling out the holdout juror for questioning would have led to judicial coercion of the juror and an intrusion into the jury’s private deliberations, according to ABC News and the Boston Globe. The Commonwealth also argued that the foreperson did not report any bias, outside influence, or other personal reason affecting the holdout juror.

Double jeopardy protections prohibit a second trial of a defendant whose first trial ended over the defendant’s objection without a conviction, unless the judge declared the mistrial out of manifest necessity. Ray v. Commonwealth, 463 Mass. 1, 3 (2012). A jury that cannot agree on a verdict is a traditional example of manifest necessity. Commonwealth v. Troila, 410 Mass. 203, 206 (1991). The September 29 update describes the steps Judge Sullivan took before he declared the mistrial and how the Supreme Judicial Court applied the manifest necessity rule in Karen Read’s case.

Evidence About the Holdout Juror

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington asked Judge Sullivan to consider evidence about the holdout juror that became known after the mistrial. Mr. Reddington alleged that the juror used a cellphone during deliberations and was not truthful about his criminal history during jury selection. Judge Sullivan admonished Mr. Reddington for naming the juror in open court and called the lawyers to sidebar after the Commonwealth objected to Mr. Reddington’s statements about the juror.

The defense also asked Judge Sullivan to review the juror’s cellphone records, according to ABC News and Boston.com. In October, Judge Sullivan denied a defense request for an evidentiary hearing about the holdout juror, according to WBUR and ABC News.

In September, news organizations began reporting on the juror’s answers on the juror questionnaire and on his phone use during deliberations. The firm’s page on juror nondisclosure and misrepresentation explains the rules that apply when a juror gives a false or incomplete answer during jury selection.

The Commonwealth’s Request for a Gag Order

The Commonwealth asked Judge Sullivan to bar the defense from making public statements about the case while the case is pending. The Commonwealth argued that public statements by the defense could taint the pool of potential jurors for a second trial, according to the Boston Globe and ABC News.

The defense argued in its written response that the proposed order would be a prior restraint on speech, according to the Associated Press and the Boston Globe. Laura McConnell, a lawyer for Ms. Clancy, wrote that the harm the Commonwealth feared was speculative because there was no jury and no trial date.

Rule 3.6 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct applies to the lawyers whether or not Judge Sullivan enters a gag order. Rule 3.6 prohibits a lawyer participating in a case from making a statement outside court that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be publicly disseminated and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a proceeding in that case. Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.6(a).

A Second Trial and the Next Court Date

Ms. Sprague indicated that the District Attorney’s Office intends to retry Ms. Clancy, according to the Boston Herald and Boston 25 News. Ms. Sprague also told Judge Sullivan that the office has not decided which murder charge the Commonwealth will pursue at a second trial. According to NBC10 Boston and the Boston Herald, the office will decide the charge after Judge Sullivan rules on the pending motions.

Mr. Reddington told Judge Sullivan that the defense wants a trial this spring. Ms. Clancy remains held at a state psychiatric hospital. Judge Sullivan indicated that a second trial could begin in March 2027 and said that he would set a trial date at the November 16 hearing if he denies the motion to dismiss.

Ms. Clancy can petition a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to review the double jeopardy claim before a second trial begins if Judge Sullivan denies the motion to dismiss. A defendant who raises a double jeopardy claim of substantial merit is entitled to review of the claim before retrial, through a petition to a single justice under G.L. c. 211, § 3. Neverson v. Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 174, 175 (1989).

Key Takeaways

• Judge William Sullivan heard arguments on November 2, 2026, on the defense motion to dismiss the murder charges against Lindsay Clancy on double jeopardy grounds and said that he would decide the motion later.
• The defense argued that Judge Sullivan should have questioned the jurors further before he declared the mistrial. The Commonwealth argued that further questioning would have led to judicial coercion of the holdout juror and an intrusion into the jury’s deliberations.
• Defense attorney Kevin Reddington alleged that the holdout juror used a cellphone during deliberations and was not truthful about his criminal history during jury selection.
• The Commonwealth asked for a gag order barring the defense from making public statements about the case. The defense called the proposed order a prior restraint on speech.
• Prosecutors indicated that the District Attorney’s Office intends to retry Ms. Clancy but has not decided which murder charge to pursue.
• Judge Sullivan scheduled a hearing for November 16 and indicated that a second trial could begin in March 2027 if he denies the motion to dismiss.

Related Serpa Law Office Resources

• Lindsay Clancy Hearing on September 29, 2026 and the Retrial Question
• Double Jeopardy in Massachusetts
• Mistrials in Massachusetts Criminal Cases
• Juror Nondisclosure and Misrepresentation in Massachusetts Criminal Trials
• Criminal Responsibility in Massachusetts Criminal Cases
• Jury Selection in Massachusetts Criminal Trials
• The Clancy Mistrial and the Juror Questionnaire
• After the Mistrial: The Renewed Motion for a Required Finding of Not Guilty in the Clancy Case
• The Lindsay Clancy Jury Dispute: When Massachusetts Law Permits Removal of a Deliberating Juror

This post is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It is based solely on public court proceedings, public reporting, and published decisions and does not reflect any non-public information. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. This may constitute attorney advertising.