After the Mistrial: The Renewed Motion for a Required Finding of Not Guilty in the Clancy Case

On September 4, 2026, a Plymouth County jury reported that it could not agree, and the court declared a mistrial in the case against Lindsay Clancy. On September 10, 2026, the defense filed a renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty. The motion asks the court, not a second jury, to end the case as a matter of law. It is set to be heard at a conference scheduled for September 29, 2026.

This post explains what the motion argues, how a required finding works, and why the Commonwealth’s ability to try the case again turns on the difference between a hung jury and a court-ordered acquittal.

This office set out its view of the decision to bring this case to trial in an earlier post, The Lindsay Clancy Trial: A Cruel, Insensitive, and Out-of-Touch Prosecution. This post addresses what happens after the mistrial.

The Charges and the Deadlock

A Plymouth County grand jury returned indictments on September 15, 2023, charging three counts of murder and three counts of strangulation. The charges arose from the events of January 24, 2023. According to the motion, Clancy was arraigned from a hospital bed on February 7, 2023, while she was treated for life-threatening injuries from a suicide attempt.

The jury deliberated over seven days. According to the motion, the jury reported that eleven jurors were prepared to find Clancy not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, and one was not. The foreperson reported that the remaining juror acknowledged a doubt but declined to apply it as the law directs.

The defense asked the Supreme Judicial Court to order an inquiry of that juror. A single justice denied the petition the same day. See Commonwealth v. Clancy, No. SJ-2026-0402 (Sept. 4, 2026). The trial court then declared a mistrial. The firm covered the underlying juror dispute in an earlier post on when Massachusetts law permits the removal of a deliberating juror.

What the Motion Asks the Court to Do

The motion is brought under Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 25(b)(2). That rule allows a defendant to renew a motion for a required finding of not guilty within five days after the jury is discharged. See Mass. R. Crim. P. 25(b)(2), 378 Mass. 896 (1979). The defense had moved for a required finding at the close of the Commonwealth’s evidence and again at the close of all the evidence, and it now renews that motion. The firm explains this device in detail on its page on the motion for a required finding of not guilty under Rule 25.

A required finding is not a request for a new trial. If the court allows the motion, it enters a finding of not guilty. That finding is an acquittal, and it ends the case. This is the point that separates a required finding from the ordinary consequence of a hung jury, addressed below.

The Sufficiency Standard

A motion under Rule 25 tests the sufficiency of the evidence. The court asks whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, would permit a rational trier of fact to find each element beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979). Slight evidence is not enough. The court must find evidence that could satisfy a rational factfinder of each element beyond a reasonable doubt, and no element may rest on conjecture. See Commonwealth v. Combs, 480 Mass. 55, 61 to 62 (2018).

The Commonwealth’s Burden on Criminal Responsibility

Clancy raised the defense of lack of criminal responsibility. A person is not criminally responsible if, because of a mental disease or defect, the person lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct or to conform the conduct to the requirements of law. See Commonwealth v. McHoul, 352 Mass. 544, 546 to 547 (1967). The firm’s page on criminal responsibility and the insanity defense in Massachusetts explains the standard and how it is litigated.

Once the evidence raises the defense, the Commonwealth bears the burden. It must prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt in one of two ways. It may prove that the defendant had no mental disease or defect, or it may prove that, despite one, the defendant retained the substantial capacity the law describes. See Commonwealth v. Berry, 457 Mass. 602, 612 (2010). The Commonwealth may not rest on a presumption that most people are sane. See Commonwealth v. Lawson, 475 Mass. 806, 814 to 815 (2016).

A required finding of not guilty may rest on the failure of proof of criminal responsibility. See Lawson, 475 Mass. at 812. The Appeals Court applied that rule in 2026. It ordered the entry of findings of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility where the conduct was undisputed but the Commonwealth’s proof of criminal responsibility was legally insufficient. See Commonwealth v. Brunette-Silveira, No. 24-P-1351 (Mass. App. Ct. May 12, 2026). The Supreme Judicial Court has cautioned that such a result will be the rare case. See Lawson, 475 Mass. at 817.

The Defense Argument

The motion contends that neither way of proving criminal responsibility was available on this record.

The Commonwealth’s own witnesses foreclosed the first. According to the motion, all six forensic experts, three called by each side, agreed that Clancy suffered from a serious mental illness on January 24, 2023. The motion states that the Commonwealth’s rebuttal experts disputed the diagnosis, not the fact of illness, describing a major depressive episode and bipolar II disorder with dissociation. On that record, the motion argues, no rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy had no mental disease or defect.

The second required proof that, despite the illness, Clancy retained the substantial capacity to appreciate wrongfulness or to conform her conduct to the law. The motion argues that the Commonwealth’s capacity evidence, that Clancy could perform familiar tasks and act in sequence on the day in question, does not prove that element.

The motion points to unrebutted testimony that a person in psychosis can perform practiced activities such as driving, and it characterizes the rebuttal opinions as describing delusional reasoning rather than a preserved capacity to appreciate wrongfulness. The motion argues that inference from competence at routine tasks, during a crisis every witness agreed was acute, is the conjecture that the sufficiency standard forbids.

The motion states that it does not rest on the jury’s division. A required finding turns on the record, not on the vote. The Commonwealth opposes the motion.

Separation of Powers: Who Decides What

The motion is, at bottom, a separation-of-powers argument. The Massachusetts Constitution divides authority among the branches under Article 30 of the Declaration of Rights, and each branch has a defined role in a criminal case.

The Legislature defines the offense and sets the burden of proof. It defined murder and strangulation, and it fixed the Commonwealth’s obligation to prove criminal responsibility once the defense is raised. The firm’s page on what the Massachusetts Legislature decides in a criminal case explains that role.

The District Attorney decides whether to seek an indictment and whether to retry a case after a mistrial. That power is broad, but it is not unlimited. The firm’s page on what a Massachusetts District Attorney can and cannot decide sets out where prosecutorial discretion ends.

The judge decides questions of law, including whether the evidence can sustain a conviction. A motion for a required finding puts that question to the court. The firm’s page on what a Massachusetts judge can and cannot decide describes the limits on judicial power in a criminal case. The required-finding motion asks the court to use a power the law reserves to it. That power is to end a prosecution the evidence cannot support, even after a jury has been unable to agree.

Double Jeopardy and Retrial

Whether the Commonwealth may try the case again turns on the distinction between a hung jury and an acquittal.

A hung jury does not end jeopardy. When a jury is discharged because it cannot agree, the case is not over, and the Commonwealth may ordinarily retry the defendant. See Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317, 325 to 326 (1984). A deadlocked jury is the classic basis for a mistrial, and double jeopardy does not bar a retrial after one. See Commonwealth v. Steward, 396 Mass. 76, 78 to 79 (1985); Commonwealth v. Troila, 410 Mass. 203, 206 (1991).

The firm’s pages on mistrials, double jeopardy, and retrial and on double jeopardy in Massachusetts explain the rule and its exceptions.

A required finding is different. When a court enters a finding of not guilty because the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law, that ruling is an acquittal, and double jeopardy bars a retrial. See Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462, 467 to 468 (2005). That is why the motion asks the court to decide the sufficiency question now. If the court allows the motion, the case is over. If the court denies it, the District Attorney may retry the case on the same record.

If the Motion Succeeds

The motion asks the court to enter a finding of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility on each indictment. Such a finding is not a release. It leads to the procedure that Massachusetts law provides after that verdict, an evaluation and possible commitment for psychiatric care under G. L. c. 123, § 16. The distinction between an acquittal and a dismissal, and what each outcome means, is addressed on the firm’s page on dismissal compared with a finding of not guilty.

What Happens Next

The court has set a conference for September 29, 2026, and the motion asks to be heard then. The court will decide whether the evidence could support a finding of criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt. The District Attorney must separately decide whether to seek a second trial. Three outcomes are possible. The court may enter a required finding of not guilty, which would end the case. If the court denies the motion, the District Attorney may retry the case or decide not to proceed.

The Rules for Any Massachusetts Defendant After a Hung Jury

The Clancy case illustrates rules that apply to any defendant whose trial ends without a verdict. A hung jury is neither a conviction nor an acquittal. The defense may still ask the court to test the sufficiency of the evidence after the jury is discharged. When lack of criminal responsibility is raised, the burden falls on the Commonwealth, and it cannot be met by the presumption that most people are sane. The firm’s approach to this kind of motion practice is described on its page on trial motion practice in Massachusetts criminal cases.

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.