Judge Sullivan weighs motion to dismiss Clancy murder charges

Defense argues Sullivan should have investigated the lone holdout juror

Lindsay Clancy returned to a Plymouth, Massachusetts courtroom on Monday to seek dismissal of murder charges over the deaths of her three young children after a deadlocked jury led to a mistrial in September. Judge William Sullivan heard the defense’s motion arguing that a new trial would violate double jeopardy rules, while prosecutors opposed dismissal.

The judicial dispute centered on two notes sent by the jury foreperson indicating that a juror was not following the rules. After receiving the notes, Sullivan spoke with each juror, reminded them of their duties and explained what constitutes reasonable doubt. He asked whether they could apply the law to the case, and all said yes.

Martin G Weinberg argued that Sullivan had not gone far enough. He said a juror who said he could follow the law could have been lying, and the situation warranted questioning the foreperson separately to learn more about what was happening during deliberations. Further questioning, Weinberg argued, could have revealed grounds to remove the lone holdout juror, Michael Desronvil, and allow deliberations to continue, potentially avoiding the mistrial.

“That’s what the foreperson was asking the court to do,” Weinberg said. “I can see that this is not easy,” he told the judge at one point. “You don’t have to keep saying that – I have thick skin,” Sullivan replied.

Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague argued that Sullivan had struck the right balance in his handling of the jury. Pressing the foreperson further would have required delving into the substance of the jury’s deliberations, potentially inserting the court’s “interpretation of what is correct” into the process. “You were the one who looked them in the eyes and asked them the questions and was in the best position to judge their credibility,” she told Sullivan. “And you credited their answers.”

Sprague argued that the holdout juror’s disagreement was not based on personal reasons but on his belief that Clancy was guilty. “It is clear from the record that this juror did not refuse to deliberate,” she said. “He refused to agree.”

Defense lawyers argued that a new trial would violate double jeopardy and asked Sullivan to dismiss the charges on double jeopardy grounds. Prosecutors argue that double jeopardy “does not bar the Commonwealth from seeking justice on behalf of the three victims.”

Sullivan declared the mistrial on 4 September after the jury was unable to agree on a verdict. Monday’s hearing was Clancy’s second time in court since the trial ended with that deadlocked jury.

Clancy, 36, has never disputed killing her three young children in 2023. Her lawyer argued that she had postpartum psychosis and was unable to control her behavior. Prosecutors acknowledged her mental health problems but said she acted deliberately and understood her actions were wrong.

Since the trial ended, Desronvil said he was certain of Clancy’s guilt but that no one would listen to him.