Lindsay Clancy's Motion to Dismiss Murder Case Denied by Judge After Mistrial — as She Faces Charges Over Deaths of Her 3 Children
Lindsay Clancy's request to dismiss her murder case was denied.
Nov. 9 2026, Published 6:00 p.m. ET
Lindsay Clancy has lost her latest bid to dismiss her triple-murder case, RadarOnline.com can report, clearing the way for a possible retrial.
Judge William Sullivan also denied the Massachusetts mother's motion to question the holdout juror in the trial and examine court records related to the juror's service.
Judgement Day for Lindsay Clancy
Her lawyer, Kevin Reddington, sparred with the judge over delays in the retrial decision.
The rulings came after a contentious court hearing last week, as Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, tried to persuade Judge William F. Sullivan to dismiss murder charges against his client for killing her three children. The 36-year-old maintains that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis before the January 2023 deaths of Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months.
Clancy's court proceedings ended in a mistrial after 11 jurors seemed to agree on a "not guilty by reason of insanity" judgment, and one lone juror insisted she was guilty and would not change his opinion.
"The Court understands the frustration of the defendant and the jurors that despite the utmost diligence, the jury ultimately was unable to reach a verdict in this emotionally grueling and complicated case," Sullivan wrote in his 17-page opinion. "While a party may desire a procedure that increases the odds of receiving a favorable outcome to the case, the Court's primary concern must be protecting the fairness of the proceedings and avoiding the possibility of a coerced verdict."
Lindsay Clancy Loses Double Jeopardy Argument
Clancy's attorney tried to get her released on the basis of double jeopardy.
Reddington had also argued that a retrial would violate double jeopardy, but Sullivan didn't see it that way.
"Because the Court concludes that there was a manifest necessity for a mistrial based on the jury's deadlock, a retrial on the murder indictments does not violate Clancy's right not to be placed in double jeopardy," the judge wrote.
As for the much-debated lone juror, Sullivan rejected a series of requests from Clancy's team to access records related his jury selection and deliberations as well as the holdout's phone records.
"Because Clancy has failed to demonstrate that the requested evidence is relevant and material to her defense at any retrial of the murder indictments, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to order production. Nor can the Court perceive any valid justification for examining Juror Doe under oath at this point in the proceedings," he concluded.
Kevin Reddington's Accusations Against the Holdout Juror
Reddington suggested Michael Desronvil had been dishonest in jury selection.
Reddington was adamant that the juror, publicly identified as Michael Desronvil, had been dishonest during jury selection by failing to tell the court that he had been arrested on domestic violence charges in 2021.
Those charges were later dismissed, and Desronvil's attorney, Heather O'Connor, countered that he had checked the box on his juror questionnaire to indicate past involvement with the legal system.
She blamed Reddington for not following up on his disclosure and defended her client, contesting that Reddington is simply upset that Desronvil "did not vote the way the defense needed."
Prosecutors Handed a Defeat of Their Own
Never Miss an
Daily updates from the heart of Hollywood, right to your inbox
By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you’re agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Prosecutors lost a request for a gag order.
State prosecutors were handed a defeat of their own when Sullivan rejected their request for a gag order that would have barred the defense team from speaking outside of court about Clancy’s case while it is pending.
"The Commonwealth has not sufficiently demonstrated that defense counsel's extrajudicial speech poses a serious threat of harm by materially prejudicing the jury venire or the outcome of any retrial. Therefore, the Commonwealth has failed to meet its burden to justify the extreme remedy of a prior restraint," he wrote.
However, Sullivan noted that prosecutors could ask for a gag order again if the circumstances change ahead of a new trial. He also scolded Reddington about the "ethical obligations" in the state's rules of professional conduct.
A decision on a possible retrial could come as soon as next week.
