Massachusetts mother seeks dismissal of murder charges following hung jury

The jury was divided 11-1 in favor of acquittal when the judge declared a mistrial.

Clancy’s defense presented a motion to dismiss the charges, citing double jeopardy principles. They argued the judge should have removed the single juror favoring conviction and allowed deliberations to continue. Judge William Sullivan did not issue a ruling immediately.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington urged the judge to make a swift decision and pressed Plymouth District Attorney to announce plans for a potential retrial. “I’m not going to allow this woman to remain incarcerated for the next year, or two or three,” Reddington stated.

Reddington expressed his desire for a second trial under Sullivan’s guidance, ideally this spring. Sullivan scheduled another hearing for November 16th and suggested a new trial could begin in March.

Prosecutors intend to retry Clancy if the case proceeds, but have not yet decided whether to maintain the current charges or opt for a lesser charge that might be more acceptable to a jury.

Clancy’s legal team has argued she suffered from postpartum psychosis and lacked the capacity to control her actions when she killed her three children in 2023. Prosecutors acknowledge Clancy’s mental health issues but maintain she acted deliberately and understood her actions were wrong.

Reddington’s defense strategy has focused on questioning the single juror who favored conviction, accusing him of dishonesty in his jury selection questionnaire and improper use of a cell phone during deliberations. Judge Sullivan cautioned Reddington against publicly naming the juror.

A temporary order sealing the names of jurors remains in effect, though several have spoken to the media, including Michael Desronvil. Reddington noted the juror’s name was “all over the internet.”

Another attorney for Clancy, Martin Weinberg, argued the mistrial could have been avoided if the judge had further questioned jurors about the breakdown in deliberations after the jury foreperson sent two notes indicating Desronvil was not following instructions on reasonable doubt. After receiving the notes, Sullivan spoke with each juror, reiterated their duties, and explained what constitutes reasonable doubt. He asked if they could apply the law to the case, and all responded affirmatively.

Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague argued Sullivan had struck a proper balance and further inquiry would have required delving into the substance of jury deliberations, which is not permitted. Desronvil has stated he was certain of Clancy’s guilt, but other jurors were unwilling to listen to him. His attorney, Heather O’Connor, urged the judge to avoid further investigation of his conduct, asserting he simply fulfilled his duty as a juror. She questioned accusations of cell phone misuse, noting jurors were allowed to keep their phones and there is no evidence Desronvil used his device to improperly investigate the case.

Sullivan also heard arguments regarding the prosecution’s request for a gag order to prevent influencing a future jury. Reddington gave interviews during the trial, while prosecutors largely refrained from speaking to the press. Clancy’s attorneys argued such an order would be an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of expression.