By Nate Raymond
Nov 2 (Reuters) - Lindsay Clancy's lawyers urged a judge on Monday to dismiss murder charges against her and expressed frustration that prosecutors have yet to make clear their plans to retry her for killing her three young children at her Massachusetts home in 2023.
Judge William Sullivan had asked the prosecution and defense to be prepared at the hearing in Plymouth, Massachusetts, to discuss a date for a potential retrial for Clancy after the judge declared a mistrial on September 4 due to a deadlocked jury in the initial trial.
But Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz's office did not announce plans for how it would prosecute the case moving forward, and the judge did not set a retrial date.
Martin Weinberg, one of Clancy's lawyers, told Sullivan that the judge had acted prematurely in declaring a mistrial after the jury reported that a holdout juror was preventing the 12-person panel from reaching a unanimous verdict.
Clancy's lawyers have argued the evidence showed she was in the throes of postpartum psychosis when she killed her children and should be found not guilty by reason of insanity, known in Massachusetts as lack of criminal responsibility.
Some jurors said in televised interviews after the mistrial was declared that they had been prepared to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, but for the one holdout juror. Such a verdict would have resulted in Clancy's commitment to a state psychiatric hospital, subject to regular court review.
The defense asked the judge to dismiss the case on the grounds that a retrial would violate Clancy's protections under the US Constitution against being tried twice for the same crime, called double jeopardy.
PROSECUTION WAITS FOR JUDGE'S RULINGS
Kevin Reddington, another of Clancy's lawyers, said she is entitled to know whether "they're going to take a run at her again" with a second trial.
"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 asked.
Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague said prosecutors intend to retry Clancy but will wait to see how the judge rules on several pending motions to "decide what that looks like."
Reddington said any further delay could mean the case would wind up before a new judge, as Sullivan is due to retire next year.
"I am not going to have this woman sit incarcerated for the next year or two or three," Reddington said. "I want a trial and I want it with you and I want it this spring."
Sullivan appeared open to that option, saying a trial in March before he retires is "probably realistic." The judge scheduled a November 16 hearing to discuss a trial date, and said he would aim to rule on a defense bid to toss the case by then.
QUESTIONS OVER JUROR
Clancy, 36, faced first-degree murder charges over the deaths of her daughter Cora, 5; son Dawson, 3; and 8-month-old son Callan.
No one at Clancy's initial trial disputed that she strangled the children with exercise bands on January 24, 2023, in the basement of their home in the Boston suburb of Duxbury. She then cut herself with a knife and jumped from a second-story window in an attempt to end her own life, leaving her paralyzed.
At Monday's hearing, Clancy's lawyers urged Sullivan to grant them access to records concerning the holdout juror.
Weinberg said that rather than declaring a mistrial, Sullivan should have posed questions to assess whether the single juror was deliberating in good faith, after the foreperson reported that the holdout was not following the judge's instructions that Clancy could only be convicted if prosecutors proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
"A citizen charged with a crime, particularly one carrying with it the gravity of the murder charge in this case, should not be subjected to the perils and burdens of a second trial unless there was manifest necessity that made the mistrial declaration an imperative," Weinberg said.
Sprague countered that the judge handled the jury impasse appropriately, saying the fact that one juror dug in his heels did not mean Sullivan should risk interfering with the deliberations by questioning him.
"It is clear from the record this juror did not refuse to deliberate," Sprague said. "He refused to agree."
(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by David Bario and Will Dunham)
