Lindsay Clancy Hearing on September 29, 2026 and the Retrial Question

Judge William Sullivan held a hearing on the morning of September 29, 2026, in Plymouth Superior Court in the murder case against Lindsay Clancy. The hearing was the first since Judge Sullivan declared a mistrial on September 4, 2026. Judge Sullivan set arguments on the defense motion to dismiss for November 2. The Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office has not announced whether it will retry Ms. Clancy.

The Commonwealth charges Ms. Clancy with murder in the deaths of her three children in Duxbury on January 24, 2023. The jury deliberated for seven days before the mistrial. News reports describe the jury as divided 11 to 1.

What Happened at the Hearing

Ms. Clancy appeared in court with her attorneys, including Kevin Reddington, for the first time since the mistrial. Judge Sullivan set November 2 for arguments on the motion to dismiss. According to CBS Boston, prosecutors needed more time to prepare their response to that motion.

Judge Sullivan described the defense motion about the holdout juror as one that “addresses a lot of issues that we need to resolve sooner rather than later.” He added, “I’m trying to move this as fast as we can.”

Edward Paltzik, the attorney for the holdout juror, told the court that he lacked access to the impounded materials he needed to file a response. Coverage of the juror motion differs on the date. CBS Boston reported that Judge Sullivan set it for November 2. WRGA reported that Mr. Reddington and the Commonwealth agreed to continue the motion out of professional courtesy, and it did not report a new date.

The District Attorney’s Office filed an opposition to the renewed defense motion for a required finding of not guilty. The opposition argues that the court should evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence “based solely on the evidence presented at trial.”

The Commonwealth also asked Judge Sullivan to enter a gag order restricting extrajudicial statements by the attorneys. The Commonwealth’s motion asserts that defense statements have “tainted any further venire.” Judge Sullivan deferred a ruling on that motion to November 2.

The Defense Motion to Dismiss on Double Jeopardy Grounds

The defense filed the motion to dismiss on September 22, 2026, with Martin Weinberg as co-counsel. The motion argues that no manifest necessity justified the mistrial because Judge Sullivan did not adequately investigate the holdout juror before declaring it. The defense therefore contends that a second trial would violate the double jeopardy protection of the Fifth Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment and Massachusetts law generally bar a second trial of a defendant whose first trial ends over the defendant’s objection without a conviction. The Supreme Judicial Court stated that rule in Ray v. Commonwealth, 463 Mass. 1, 3 (2012). A second trial is permitted when the trial judge declared the mistrial because of manifest necessity. A jury that cannot agree on a verdict is the traditional example of manifest necessity. Commonwealth v. Troila, 410 Mass. 203, 206 (1991).

The trial judge decides whether to declare a mistrial, and a reviewing court asks whether the judge abused that discretion. Two principles guide the review. Counsel must have had a full opportunity to be heard, and the judge must have given careful consideration to alternatives to a mistrial. Ray, 463 Mass. 1. The Supreme Judicial Court also identified factors that often apply, including statements by the jury that it cannot agree, and the length of deliberations compared with the length of the trial and the complexity of the factual disputes. Ray, 463 Mass. 1.

The Supreme Judicial Court applied those principles to Karen Read’s case in February 2025. The trial judge in that case directed the jury to continue deliberating after the first note. The judge gave the Tuey-Rodriquez instruction after the second note, which encourages a deadlocked jury to give more serious consideration to opposing points of view. The judge declared a mistrial after a third note stating that further deliberation would be futile. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the mistrial was manifestly necessary and that double jeopardy did not bar a retrial. Read v. Commonwealth, 495 Mass. 312 (2025). Ms. Read was later acquitted of murder at her retrial.

The record of what Judge Sullivan did before the mistrial is public. The jury reported on the fourth day of deliberations that it could not reach a unanimous verdict. Judge Sullivan sent the jurors back to continue deliberating. After a second report on September 2, 2026, Judge Sullivan gave the Tuey-Rodriquez instruction. On September 3, the jury foreperson told Judge Sullivan that one juror had refused to follow the law on reasonable doubt. On September 4, the foreperson submitted a note stating, “It is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision.” Judge Sullivan then declared the mistrial. According to PBS NewsHour, Mr. Reddington had asked Judge Sullivan to give the instruction again and to continue deliberations.

Attorney Joe Serpa’s assessment is that the motion to dismiss is unlikely to succeed. Judge Sullivan took steps similar to those of the trial judge in Ms. Read’s case. He sent the jury back to deliberate after the first report, gave the Tuey-Rodriquez instruction after the second report, and declared the mistrial only after the foreperson’s final note. The Supreme Judicial Court held in Read that those steps made the mistrial manifestly necessary.

The jury deliberated for seven days. The Supreme Judicial Court reviews a mistrial only for abuse of discretion. The decision whether to give the Tuey-Rodriquez instruction belongs to the trial judge even when the parties request it. Ray, 463 Mass. 1. The defense claim about the holdout juror asks the court to inquire into what happened in the jury room, and the court in Read refused a posttrial inquiry of that kind.

The Holdout Juror Motion

The defense asked Judge Sullivan to investigate the holdout juror. According to news reports, the defense alleged that the juror scrolled on a cellphone during deliberations and disregarded the instructions on reasonable doubt. The defense also requested the juror’s cellphone records and jury selection questionnaire.

Massachusetts courts protect the secrecy of jury deliberations. The Supreme Judicial Court has called that secrecy a “bedrock of our judicial system.” Commonwealth v. Moore, 474 Mass. 541, 548 (2016). In Ms. Read’s case, the court refused to permit a posttrial inquiry into what the jurors privately agreed on, and it cited the prohibition on probing the content of deliberations. Read, 495 Mass. 312.

Judge Sullivan has not yet ruled on whether to order any inquiry of the juror. Mr. Paltzik now represents the juror and told the court that he required access to the impounded materials before responding.

The Renewed Motion for a Required Finding of Not Guilty

Mr. Reddington renewed the defense motion for a required finding of not guilty under Rule 25(b)(2) of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure. The rule allows a defendant to renew that motion after the jury is discharged.

The motion is governed by the standard of Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979). Under that standard, the judge views the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and asks whether any rational jury could find each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth opposed the motion and argued that the trial evidence meets that standard. Mr. Reddington argued that the Commonwealth had failed to prove criminal responsibility because all six experts who testified agreed that Ms. Clancy suffered a serious mental illness.

Judge Sullivan already denied the defense motion for a required finding of not guilty twice during the trial, once after the Commonwealth rested and again before deliberations began, according to Boston.com. The renewed motion asks Judge Sullivan to reverse those rulings on the same trial evidence.

Attorney Serpa’s assessment is that the renewed motion is unlikely to succeed. Under Latimore, the judge views every disputed inference in the Commonwealth’s favor and asks only whether any rational jury could find that the Commonwealth proved criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt. The weight of the expert testimony is a question for the jury. The Commonwealth presented evidence of planning and of Ms. Clancy’s conduct afterward. Judge Sullivan has twice found that evidence sufficient to send the case to the jury.

Judge Sullivan’s ruling on this motion can end the prosecution. The Supreme Judicial Court applied its double jeopardy rule for hung juries in Ray where the defendant made no claim that the trial evidence was legally insufficient to support a conviction. The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits retrial when a conviction is reversed because the evidence was insufficient. Commonwealth v. Tinsley, 487 Mass. 380, 389 (2021).

Whether the Commonwealth Can Retry Ms. Clancy

The District Attorney’s Office decides whether the Commonwealth retries Ms. Clancy, offers a plea, or seeks a different resolution. Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz stated after the mistrial that he would not make an immediate decision. As of the September 29 hearing, the office had not announced one.

Judge Sullivan must first rule on the double jeopardy motion, the holdout juror motion, and the renewed motion for a required finding. A defendant who loses a double jeopardy motion in the trial court can petition the Supreme Judicial Court before a retrial begins, as Ms. Read and the petitioner in Ray did. The November 2 hearing is the next scheduled date in Ms. Clancy’s case.

Key Takeaways

• Judge William Sullivan heard the first post-mistrial hearing in the Clancy case on September 29, 2026, and set November 2 for arguments on the defense motion to dismiss.
• The defense argues that a second trial violates double jeopardy because Judge Sullivan did not adequately investigate the holdout juror before declaring the mistrial. Attorney Joe Serpa’s assessment is that the motion is unlikely to succeed, because Judge Sullivan took steps similar to those the Supreme Judicial Court upheld in Read.
• The Supreme Judicial Court has held that a mistrial for a deadlocked jury is manifestly necessary when the judge gave counsel a full opportunity to be heard and carefully considered alternatives. It applied that rule in Ray and in Read.
• The renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty asks Judge Sullivan to rule that the trial evidence was legally insufficient. He denied the same motion twice during the trial, and Attorney Serpa’s assessment is that the renewed motion is unlikely to succeed. The Commonwealth has filed an opposition.
• The Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office has not announced whether it will retry Ms. Clancy.

Related Serpa Law Office Resources

• Mistrials in Massachusetts Criminal Cases
• Rule 25: The Motion for a Required Finding of Not Guilty in Massachusetts
• After the Mistrial: The Renewed Motion for a Required Finding of Not Guilty in the Clancy Case
• The Clancy Mistrial and the Juror Questionnaire
• Juror Nondisclosure and Misrepresentation in Massachusetts Criminal Trials
• The Lindsay Clancy Jury Dispute: When Massachusetts Law Permits Removal of a Deliberating Juror
• The Lindsay Clancy Trial: A Cruel, Insensitive, and Out-of-Touch Prosecution
• Filming Jurors in the Lindsay Clancy Trial and Massachusetts Witness Intimidation Law

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.