Judge Denies Lindsay Clancy’s Double Jeopardy Motion: The November 9, 2026 Rulings

By Attorney Joe Serpa | Georgetown University Law Center

On Monday, November 9, 2026, Judge William Sullivan denied Lindsay Clancy’s motion to dismiss the murder charges on double jeopardy grounds. He also denied her request for records about the holdout juror and her request to question that juror under oath. He denied the Commonwealth’s request for a gag order on the defense, without prejudice. The Commonwealth may now retry Ms. Clancy on the murder indictments.

Judge Sullivan heard the three motions in Plymouth Superior Court on November 2, 2026. Our post on the November 2 hearing explained why the motion to dismiss was unlikely to succeed. Judge Sullivan had said he would announce his decision on November 16. He issued written decisions on November 9 instead. The case returns to court on Monday, November 16, according to WCVB and WBUR.

The Double Jeopardy Ruling

Judge Sullivan declared a mistrial on September 4, 2026, after the jury reported that it could not reach a verdict. The defense argued that the mistrial was not necessary and that a second trial would violate Ms. Clancy’s right not to be tried twice for the same offense.

Judge Sullivan rejected that argument. He concluded that there was “a manifest necessity for a mistrial based on the jury’s deadlock,” and that a retrial on the murder indictments therefore does not violate double jeopardy, according to ABC News.

What the Judge Relied On

According to Boston.com, Judge Sullivan pointed to the steps he took before he declared the mistrial. He declined to remove the holdout juror after the first jury note. He polled each juror individually. He instructed the jury again on reasonable doubt. Judge Sullivan wrote that he had to avoid coercing a verdict, according to WBUR and Boston.com, and that his primary concern was protecting the fairness of the proceedings, according to WBUR.

Judge Sullivan also rejected the defense argument that information learned after the trial undermined the mistrial, according to Boston.com. That ruling follows Read v. Commonwealth, 495 Mass. 312 (2025), where the Supreme Judicial Court judged a deadlock mistrial on the information the trial judge had when he or she declared it.

Why the Ruling Follows Massachusetts Law

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 Supreme Judicial Court upholds a deadlock mistrial where the judge gave counsel a full opportunity to be heard and carefully considered the alternatives. Judge Sullivan’s written decision describes the alternatives he considered.

The Holdout Juror Records

The defense had asked for court sign-in sheets, cellphone sign-in records, jury room video, the juror’s confidential questionnaire, and phone records, according to Boston.com. The defense also asked Judge Sullivan to question the juror under oath.

Judge Sullivan denied both requests. He wrote that Ms. Clancy had failed to show that the records were relevant and material to her defense, according to WCVB. He also wrote that he could see no valid reason to examine the juror under oath, according to WCVB. WBUR reported that Judge Sullivan called the proposed inquiry an improper intrusion that would discourage citizens from serving as jurors. Judge Sullivan referred to the juror as “Juror Doe.”

The law permits inquiry into extraneous influences on the jury, such as outside information a juror brought into the deliberations. The law prohibits inquiry into the substance of the deliberations, the jurors’ thought processes, or the reasons for their votes. Commonwealth v. Moore, 474 Mass. 541, 548 (2016), citing Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192, 196-198 (1979). Our post on juror nondisclosure and misrepresentation explains those rules.

The Gag Order Request

The Commonwealth had asked Judge Sullivan to bar the lawyers in the case from speaking publicly about it. Prosecutors described defense statements to the press as inflammatory, according to Boston.com.

Judge Sullivan denied the request without prejudice, according to WCVB. He wrote that the Commonwealth had not met its burden to justify the extreme remedy of a prior restraint, according to WBUR. The Commonwealth may renew the request if circumstances change and it can show that a prior restraint is necessary, according to WCVB.

A court order forbidding speech before the speech occurs is a prior restraint. Massachusetts courts permit one only on detailed findings of a compelling interest and the absence of a reasonable, less restrictive alternative. A lawyer’s public statements remain subject to Rule 3.6 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, with or without a court order.

What Comes Next

The November 16 Hearing and a Trial Date

Judge Sullivan has scheduled a hearing for Monday, November 16, in Plymouth, according to WCVB and WBUR. Judge Sullivan has discussed a March 2027 trial date, and the defense prefers April, according to Boston.com. The Commonwealth has not said whether it will seek a conviction of murder in the first degree or a lesser degree at a second trial, according to WBUR and Boston.com. District Attorney Timothy Cruz said that he would say more after the November 16 hearing, according to WCVB.

An Appeal Before the Second Trial

A defendant ordinarily cannot appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss until after trial. Massachusetts recognizes a narrow exception for double jeopardy claims, because the right protects a defendant from being tried a second time. See Neverson v. Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 174, 175 (1989). The defendant files a petition with a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court under G.L. c. 211, § 3. Karen Read used that route after her mistrial in Read v. Commonwealth.

Defense lawyer Martin Weinberg said that the defense expects to seek review in the Supreme Judicial Court in the very near future, according to Boston.com. The single justice decides whether to grant relief, deny it, or report the question to the full court.

Key Takeaways

• On November 9, 2026, Judge William Sullivan denied Lindsay Clancy’s motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, finding a manifest necessity for the mistrial based on the jury’s deadlock.
• Judge Sullivan denied the defense requests for records about the holdout juror and for questioning of that juror under oath.
• Judge Sullivan denied the Commonwealth’s request for a gag order without prejudice, so the Commonwealth may renew it if circumstances change.
• A jury that cannot agree on a verdict is a traditional example of manifest necessity for a mistrial.
• Massachusetts permits review of a double jeopardy ruling before a second trial through a petition to a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court under G.L. c. 211, § 3.
• The case returns to Plymouth Superior Court on November 16, 2026, and Judge Sullivan has discussed a March 2027 trial date.

Related Serpa Law Office Resources

• Lindsay Clancy Hearing on November 2, 2026 and the Double Jeopardy Motion
• 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
• The Clancy Mistrial and the Juror Questionnaire
• The Lindsay Clancy Jury Dispute: When Massachusetts Law Permits Removal of a Deliberating Juror
• Criminal Responsibility in Massachusetts Criminal Cases
• What a Massachusetts District Attorney Can and Cannot Decide

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.