Massachusetts seeks new trial for mother in children’s deaths

Her defense team argues she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time and therefore should not be held criminally responsible.

The initial trial in September concluded with a hung jury, leaving Clancy’s legal status uncertain. Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague indicated the prosecution intends to proceed with a retrial, though the specific charges will depend on a decision from Judge William Sullivan regarding several pending motions.

Kevin Reddington, Clancy’s attorney, questioned the timing of charge determination, asking why prosecutors haven’t decided on the specific charges for a potential retrial. He also requested that Judge Sullivan, who is nearing mandatory retirement in June, preside over the spring trial. A hearing is scheduled for November 16th, where Sullivan will consider the motions, including a defense request to dismiss the charges. If that motion is denied, a trial date, ideally in March, will be set.

The defense has also filed a motion to dismiss the charges and investigate a holdout juror, alleging a violation of constitutional protections against double jeopardy. Defense attorney Martin Weinberg claims Judge Sullivan’s questioning of the jury after receiving notes about a juror’s refusal to follow instructions on reasonable doubt was inadequate. Prosecutors countered that a mistrial was properly declared due to the jury’s deadlock, and further questioning would have been inappropriate.

Reddington further requested access to the holdout juror’s phone records and questionnaire, alleging the juror used a cellphone and researched “altruistic filicide” during deliberations and was dishonest about his criminal history. The juror’s attorney, Heather O’Connor, denied these allegations.

Prosecutors have also sought a gag order to limit public statements from both legal teams, citing concerns that comments from Reddington, including requests for a presidential pardon and criticism of other jurors, could prejudice potential juries. Defense attorneys opposed the gag order, arguing it would violate First Amendment rights and that any impact on future juries is speculative. Judge Sullivan will consider this motion as well.