Lindsay Clancy After the Mistrial: Can She Be Tried Again? What to Watch on September 29

Lindsay Clancy never denied strangling her three children in the basement of the family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts home in January 2023. The seven-week trial was about whether she could be held criminally responsible for it. After about a week of deliberations, the jury of nine women and three men told Judge William Sullivan, “It is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision, and we will not be able to,” as WBUR reported. The judge declared a mistrial.

According to WBUR, a single juror opposed finding Clancy not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. The judge set a status hearing for September 29 and said that if prosecutors want to go forward, he would like to retry the case later this fall, LiveNOW from FOX reported.

How the First Trial Ended

Clancy was charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan. The defense argued she was suffering from postpartum psychosis, was overmedicated, and heard a voice ordering her to kill the children and herself. Prosecutors argued she planned the killings because she wanted to end her life, knew what she was doing was wrong, and could have followed the law.

When the jury reported it was stuck, the judge gave what Massachusetts calls a Tuey-Rodriguez instruction, which urges jurors to keep trying for a verdict. The jury came back deadlocked again, and a note from the foreperson indicated one juror was preventing a unanimous decision. Before the mistrial was declared, defense attorney Kevin Reddington asked the state’s Supreme Judicial Court for an emergency stay, and the court denied it the same afternoon, according to WBUR. Clancy remains in a state psychiatric hospital, where she has been held for more than three years.

Why a Hung Jury Doesn’t End the Case

Double jeopardy protects against being tried twice for the same offense, but a deadlocked jury doesn’t trigger it. In Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317 (1984), the Supreme Court said it has “constantly adhered to the rule that a retrial following a ‘hung jury’ does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause,” and held that “the failure of the jury to reach a verdict is not an event which terminates jeopardy.” The Court went further: regardless of how strong or weak the evidence was at the first trial, the defendant had no federal double jeopardy claim to stop the second one.

So under the federal Constitution, prosecutors get another try. Reddington told reporters that another lawyer, Dana Goldblatt, would handle any federal motions and believes the defense has “a very, very good double jeopardy argument,” as WBUR reported. Richardson is the precedent that argument has to get around.

The One Massachusetts Route to Stopping a Retrial

Massachusetts gives defendants something the federal rule doesn’t. In Berry v. Commonwealth, 393 Mass. 793 (1985), the Supreme Judicial Court held that “when the Commonwealth has failed to present evidence legally sufficient to support a conviction, and the defendant has moved for a required finding of not guilty, jeopardy terminates when a judge declares a mistrial after the jury fails to agree on a verdict.” The defendant is then “entitled to a review of the legal sufficiency of the evidence before another trial takes place,” and if the evidence was insufficient, the charge is dismissed. That’s what happened to Berry.

Two conditions matter. The defense has to have moved for a required finding of not guilty at the first trial. And the test is demanding: the question is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational juror could have found every element beyond a reasonable doubt. Eleven jurors voting one way doesn’t decide it. The judge asks whether the State’s evidence, taken at its best, could support a conviction at all.

What Prosecutors Have to Prove About Her Mind

Massachusetts puts the burden on the prosecution. Under Commonwealth v. McHoul, 352 Mass. 544 (1967), a person “is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law,” and the burden is on the Commonwealth to prove the defendant mentally responsible. Once the issue is raised, prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she could appreciate that what she did was wrong and could conform her conduct to the law.

That’s why the trial turned on dueling experts. Defense witnesses, including forensic psychiatrist Phillip Resnick, testified she was experiencing postpartum psychosis. Prosecution experts testified she was depressed but not psychotic, relying in part on a definition of the postpartum period as the four weeks after birth, according to WBUR. A Berry motion would ask whether that prosecution evidence, taken at its strongest, was enough for any rational juror to find criminal responsibility.

What Could Happen on September 29

Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said after the mistrial that his office would decide soon whether to retry Clancy and that he believed the first-degree murder charges were warranted. Four paths are open:

• Prosecutors announce they’ll retry her on the same charges, and the judge sets a schedule, possibly for later this fall.
• Prosecutors retry her on lesser charges, which WBUR noted they could pursue.
• The two sides resolve the case without a second trial.
• The defense asks the court to find the evidence legally insufficient and bar a retrial under Berry, or presses the federal double jeopardy argument.

A new jury would hear the case from the beginning, and neither side is bound by how the first jury split. What the first trial did produce is a full transcript of every witness, which both sides can use to prepare and to confront any witness who testifies differently the second time. For how a deadlock is handled when it happens in a Florida courtroom, see what happens when a Florida jury says it is deadlocked, and the firm’s page on the insanity defense in Florida covers how that defense works here. The firm’s criminal defense hub covers how a Florida case moves from charge to trial.

Common Questions

Can Lindsay Clancy be tried again after the mistrial?

Yes. A mistrial because the jury couldn’t agree doesn’t end jeopardy, so a retrial doesn’t violate double jeopardy under Richardson v. United States. Massachusetts law allows one exception: under Berry v. Commonwealth, if the defense moved for a required finding of not guilty and the evidence at the first trial was legally insufficient, a retrial is barred.

When is the Lindsay Clancy hearing?

Judge William Sullivan set a status hearing for September 29, 2026 in Plymouth Superior Court, where prosecutors are expected to address whether they will retry the case.

Why was there a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case?

After about a week of deliberations the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on whether she was criminally responsible. WBUR reported that a single juror opposed finding her not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, and the judge declared a mistrial on September 4, 2026.

Who has to prove insanity in Massachusetts?

The prosecution. Under Commonwealth v. McHoul, once the issue is raised the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct and to conform it to the law.

Further Reading

1. Judge declares mistrial in Clancy case after jurors, with “heavy heart,” fail to reach verdict, WBUR, September 4, 2026
2. What happens next after mistrial in Lindsay Clancy murder case?, LiveNOW from FOX, September 4, 2026

This post is general information about the law, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Ms. Clancy is presumed innocent, and the case is pending. The facts are as reported by WBUR and LiveNOW from FOX. The decisions discussed are Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317 (1984), Berry v. Commonwealth, 393 Mass. 793 (1985), and Commonwealth v. McHoul, 352 Mass. 544 (1967).