Posted on 09/29/2026 11:34:24 AM PDT by DFG
Lindsay Clancy returned to court on Tuesday for the first time since her murder trial ended with a deadlocked jury.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington asked Judge William Sullivan for an acquittal, arguing that there was not enough evidence to prove that the 36-year-old former nurse killed her three young children.
"This entire case is based on speculation," Reddington said. "Where is the admission? Where does she say that she did this?"
Prosecutor Shanan Buckingham called the argument "laughable."
Sullivan did not immediately rule. The next hearing in the case is set for Nov. 2.
During the trial, Clancy's attorneys did not dispute that she fatally strangled her children — Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and 8-month-old Callan — with exercise bands at their Duxbury, Mass., home in January 2023. She had been charged with three counts of murder in the first degree.
Her lawyers argued that she could not be held criminally responsible for the killings because she was suffering from the rare mental illness that they said made her unable to understand the wrongfulness of her actions.
Prosecutors contended that Clancy, who was never formally diagnosed with postpartum psychosis, carefully planned the killings and bears full responsibility for her children's deaths.
The trial hinged largely on discussions of Clancy's mental state. Over nearly five weeks of testimony, a series of family members and medical professionals took the stand to describe the mental and emotional struggles she endured in the months leading up to the killings.
During deliberations, the 12-member jury informed the judge that the panel was deadlocked: 11 members believed Clancy was not guilty, but one juror refused to apply the legal standard of reasonable doubt, preventing the jury from returning a unanimous not-guilty verdict.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Did a Clancy supporter steal the exercise bands from the jury room?
It was a one-armed man!
Once you pleas insanity, it’s kind of hard to argue actual innocence.
Anyone wondering what the definition of “flailing” is.....this is it.
In Massachusetts?
This guy should be disbarred.
Maybe the lawyer thinks it’ll help if he pleads insanity...for himself.
11 members believed in leprechauns.
What’s wrong with the black dude?, says The Lying Media.
This lawyer is really screwing his client over at this point
Clancy benefited from a brief bout of cultural collective insanity combined with an emotional and ideological driven jury
Sanity is reasserting itself in this case and her lawyer is misreading the room by doubling down on the insanity
He should be trying to cut a plea deal because she may not get so lucky next time
Yep, the one-armed man did it.
“I didn’t do it, nobody saw me do it, you can’t prove anything.”
the lawyer just wants more money. He can continue to make nonsense legal moves to get money because there are thousands of mostly women who will be happy to send him more money as long as he continues.
Are they BOTH on psychotropic drugs?
What a crock! I know defense attorneys are necessary, but some of them are obviously pond scum.
“My client didn’t do it, but if she did it, she was insane.”
Seems rather far-fetched.
There's her confession.
I listened to an interview with a famous defense lawyer, and he said, approximately hold a news conference and say whatever you need to say to color the jury pool. If have to you can retract it later, but the retraction will be on page 40 below the fold. But the initial release, if you do it right will be above the fold on the front page.
I want to say it was F. Lee Bailey. But I’m not sure.
I think he is trying to set the stage for her to request a retrial because of incompetence in legal representation.
I'm not aware of the legal standard he's applying here. If every conviction needs a confession no one will ever go to jail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.