Lindsay Clancy prosecutors say they want her to stand trial again for murders of her 3 children — but on what charges?

Lindsay Clancy's prosecutors said Monday they want her to stand trial again for the murders of her three young children — but it isn't yet clear what charges Clancy would face at a retrial, WBZ-TV reported.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington in Clancy's first trial acknowledged that she killed her children — 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan — in their Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in January 2023, WBZ said.

'When you have jurors, you expect that jurors are going to be honest in their disclosure to the court about their background.'

But Clancy pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder, and Reddington argued that his client wasn't criminally responsible because she was overmedicated and suffering from postpartum psychosis, the station added.

Prosecutors disagreed, saying Clancy knew right from wrong and planned to strangle her children, WBZ said.

The prosecution also maintained that Clancy schemed to get her husband out of the house that evening her children were killed by sending him to pick up medicine for one of their children and dinner for the family, the Associated Press said.

The first trial ended with a hung jury on Sept. 4 with one juror holding out, believing Clancy was guilty, while the other 11 believed she was not guilty of murder.

In a twist, Reddington argued in late September that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove Clancy killed her three children.

However, in a civil lawsuit, Clancy's lawyers said she admitted to killing them, WBZ noted.

More from the station:

At a hearing in Plymouth Superior Court Monday, prosecutor Jennifer Sprague said for the first time that Clancy will likely stand trial again, though it is not yet known what she would be charged with.

"This would be a retrial," Sprague said, adding that the prosecution has not yet decided "how that will look."

Sprague told Judge William Sullivan she did not want to set a trial date until he ruled on outstanding motions in the case.

Click to expand...

Reddington, however, said he wants to know what charges his client will face — and added that the "elephant in the room" is Sullivan's approaching retirement, WBZ reported. In addition, Reddington said he wants Sullivan to be the trial judge, the station noted.

"Why do we not know if the next trial is going to be murder in the first degree or a lesser charge or no charge?" Reddington said, according to WBZ. "They don't need to wait for that to determine if they're going to take a run on her again on first-degree. I have to know logistically if it's going to be triple homicide first-degree or something else."

The station added that if prosecutors decide to retry Clancy on lesser second-degree murder charges, she could opt between a jury trial or a judge issuing a ruling.

"I am not going to have this woman sit incarcerated for the next year, or two, or three," Reddington said, according to WBZ. "I want a trial. And I want it with you, and I want it this spring."

Sullivan said he is leaning toward March as a realistic date for a second trial, the station reported, adding that the date will be discussed at the next hearing on Nov. 16.

Prosecutor Sprague also argued for the government's motion for a gag order, saying Reddington has made "calculated" statements that could impact the public's perception of the case — and thereby taint the jury pool for a potential retrial, WBZ said.

Laura McConnell argued for the defense against the gag order, the station said, saying that because Clancy hasn't given interviews, Reddington acts as her voice — and a gag order would take that away.

WBZ said Sullivan took the matter under advisement and didn't issue a ruling Monday.

RELATED: Lindsay Clancy's lawyer makes stunning argument in first hearing since recent mistrial


In addition, Reddington argued on a motion to preserve records related to the holdout juror, referred to in court as "Juror Doe," the station said.

"When you have jurors, you expect that jurors are going to be honest in their disclosure to the court about their background," Reddington said, according to WBZ.

Then things got heated when Reddington referred to the holdout juror by name, the station said:

"I'm going to stop you right there," Sullivan said.

"No. You're not going to stop me," Reddington responded.

"I am," Sullivan said. "Because there's no need to bring out that juror's name."

Click to expand...

Reddington then argued that the holdout juror's name is "all over the internet," as he has given interviews, WBZ said, adding that Redding also told Judge Sullivan the holdout juror has "got more face time than I do."

Reddington also alleged that the holdout juror was scrolling on his phone during deliberations, the station reported, adding that Reddington added that "I have evidence that this man was not honest" on his jury form.

Clancy's attorney alleged that the holdout juror didn't disclose that he had an abuse prevention order against him and failed to disclose a 2021 arrest, WBZ reported.

Prosecutor Sprague asked for the motion to be denied "on its face," the station said, since allowing the motion would be "potentially opening the door" into examining all jurors' actions and statements.

Judge Sullivan did not rule Monday on the motion related to the holdout juror, WBZ noted.

Clancy remains in custody at Tewksbury State Hospital under psychiatric care, the station said, adding that she is paralyzed and in a wheelchair after jumping out of a window the night her children were killed.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Continue reading...

[H/T Blaze Media]