Skip to content
Bramble

Crime

Lindsay Clancy seeks dismissal at first hearing since mistrial; retrial undecided

At the first hearing since the 4 September mistrial, Lindsay Clancy's lawyer argued the evidence did not show she killed her three children and asked for the case to be dropped. Prosecutors called this "laughable". No ruling was made and a further hearing is set for 2 November.

4 outlets · 1L · 1C · 2R First reported Account updated

Updated (version 4). Rewritten with the latest reporting.

Image: New York Post
Image: The Independent
Image: Irish Independent

1 / 3

The story, neutrally told

Lindsay Clancy, 36, appeared in a Massachusetts court on Tuesday for the first time since her trial over the deaths of her three children ended in a mistrial on 4 September. At trial the defence did not deny the killings and argued she was not criminally responsible because of postpartum psychosis. On Tuesday, lawyer Kevin Reddington instead argued there was not enough evidence that she killed them, saying "This entire case is based on speculation", and asked the judge to find her not guilty.

Prosecutor Shanan Buckingham called the argument "laughable" and said the state had met its burden of proof. Judge William Sullivan did not immediately rule; according to the BBC, the dismissal request will be discussed on 2 November, when both sides should be ready to discuss trial dates. District Attorney Timothy Cruz said prosecutors have not decided whether to retry her; the Independent says options include first-degree murder, lesser charges, or dropping the case.

The defence has also asked for an investigation of the one juror who favoured conviction, Michael Desronvil, over his questionnaire and cellphone use; his lawyer says he had no doubts. The New York Post, in a preview published before the hearing, reported that Reddington has said in interviews he would accept a deal involving no prison time.

Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on.

Left1 outlet

Framing
Hearing report leading with the defence's new argument, quoting Reddington's "Where is the admission?".
Emphasis
The shift from a mental-state defence to a lack-of-evidence argument; the DA's options; the juror dispute; public interest in maternal mental health.
Leaves out or plays down
Does not mention the 2 November hearing date or Reddington's stated availability for a retrial.
Charged language
“striking turn”“dramatic mistrial”
For example
““This entire case is based on speculation,” attorney Kevin Reddington said in a striking turn after a lengthy trial” — The Independent

Centre1 outlet

Framing
Straight news report of the hearing, focused on the dismissal push and the prosecution reply.
Emphasis
Rule 25 motion, the judge's push for trial dates, the 2 November hearing and Reddington's June availability.
Leaves out or plays down
Says little about the juror investigation request or plea possibilities.
For example
“Her defence team on Tuesday argued the judge should dismiss her case but prosecutors said the state had "met its burden" in proving her guilt.” — BBC News

Right2 outlets

Framing
The Post previewed the hearing as pivotal for the case, with detail on the trial, the holdout juror and a possible deal; the Irish Independent frames the return to court as a bid to head off a retrial.
Emphasis
Juror misconduct claims, the harrowing trial facts, the DA's options and the ex-husband's distress; the single holdout juror.
Leaves out or plays down
The Post preview predates the hearing so does not report what happened there.
Charged language
“killer mom”“captivating triple murder trial”“furiously working”
For example
“the lawyer for the 36-year-old Duxbury, Massachusetts, killer mom, has been furiously working on various last-ditch legal bids” — New York Post
“Lindsay Clancy returns to court in bid to head off a retrial for the killing of her three children” — Irish Independent