Lindsay Clancy update: Can Kevin Reddington’s new motion prevent a second trial after mistrial? What we know
Less than a week after a mistrial was declared in the high-profile Lindsay Clancy case, defense attorney Kevin Reddington filed a renewed motion seeking a required finding of not guilty on Thursday. This is Reddington’s attempt at preventing a second trial.
In the new court filing, Reddington argued that prosecutors failed to present legally sufficient evidence to prove Clancy was criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children.
The motion was filed in Plymouth Superior Court and follows more than seven days of jury deliberations that ended without a unanimous verdict. According to court filings cited by NBC Boston, 11 jurors were prepared to find Clancy not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, while one juror refused to agree.
Judge William Sullivan then declared a mistrial.
Also read: 5 things jurors said after Lindsay Clancy hearing ended in mistrial: ‘Too much reasonable doubt’
Why is Kevin Reddington seeking a not guilty ruling?
Reddington renewed his request under Massachusetts Rule 25, which allows a judge to enter a required finding of not guilty if the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Reddington challenged that the prosecutors failed to produce sufficient evidence that would allow a reasonable juror, “earnestly seeking the truth,” to conclude that every element of the charged offences had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reddington also relied heavily on the jury’s deliberations. His motion noted that the foreperson informed the court that the lone holdout juror acknowledged having reasonable doubt but refused to apply that legal standard when voting. During deliberations, Reddington unsuccessfully petitioned the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to inquire into the holdout juror’s conduct. The request was denied, and the trial later ended in a mistrial.
If the judge grants the Rule 25 motion, it would amount to an acquittal, barring prosecutors from retrying Clancy under double jeopardy protections, Reddington argued.
Defense’s argument on Clancy’s mental health
Six forensic specialists testified before the judge and jurors throughout the trial. The prosecution called three, while the defense called the other three.
According to the new motion filed by Reddington, all six forensic experts agreed that Clancy suffered from a serious mental illness at the time of the murders.
“The treating clinicians who saw Ms. Clancy in the weeks before January 24 testified that she presented with postpartum depression and anxiety and that they did not observe psychosis; that testimony bears on which illness she had, not on whether she had one, and depression and anxiety of the severity that led to the psychiatric admission are themselves a mental disease or defect,” the court filing read.
Reddington argued that the prosecution’s own evidence established that Clancy suffered from a mental disease or defect.
Reddington further added, “The Commonwealth’s rebuttal experts disputed the label, not the fact; a major depressive episode according to Dr. Mack; bipolar II disorder with dissociation according to Dr. Heilbrun.”
“No rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that she had no mental disease or defect when the Commonwealth’s own proof established that she did,” the motion read.
The renewed motion asks the court to enter findings of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility on all indictments. The request is expected to be considered during a court conference scheduled for September 29.
