New motions in Lindsay Clancy case. Here's the latest ahead of Monday hearing

Lawyers on both sides of the Lindsay Clancy case filed new motions in Plymouth Superior Court this week, as we all wait to find out what comes next for the Massachusetts mother accused of killing her three kids at the family’s Duxbury home in 2023.

Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, has argued that a second trial would amount to double jeopardy, but prosecutors asked Judge William Sullivan in an opposing motion filed Monday not to dismiss the charges against Clancy, arguing that double jeopardy doesn’t apply because the judge properly declared a mistrial on Sept. 4 — with the jury split 11 to 1 in her favor.

Clancy’s defense has argued the judge should have ousted the one juror — Michael Desronvil — who favored a murder conviction after the jury foreperson complained he was refusing to listen to the law on reasonable doubt.

Plymouth Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague wrote in her 30-page motion, however, that the court carefully explored the alternatives to avoid a mistrial, and that singling out a juror for inquiry would be tantamount to judicial coercion and an intrusion into the jury’s deliberative process.

During the trial, Reddington didn’t dispute that Clancy killed the children, instead seeking to persuade a jury to find her not criminally responsible because of mental disease — a rare condition called postpartum psychosis. But in the wake of the mistrial, Reddington had sought to persuade the judge to acquit her, arguing there wasn’t enough evidence to prove she killed her three kids.

Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not announced whether his office will retry Clancy. The prosecution maintains that Clancy, a 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse, acted deliberately when she strangled 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan Clancy with exercise bands, and then used multiple methods to try to end her life. They said that she knew what she was doing was wrong, and that she contrived to get her husband out of the house on Jan. 24, 2023, by sending him to pick up medicine for one of their children and dinner for the family.

Prosecutors can choose to retry Clancy on first-degree murder charges or seek to try her only on lesser charges, including second-degree murder or manslaughter, or drop the case entirely.

Another motion before Sullivan is the gag order request filed by prosecutors on Sept. 28 that would “preclude prejudicial extrajudicial statements to the media” — and would apply to prosecutors, defense lawyers, and law enforcement. If imposed as requested, the ban would extend until the conclusion of all post-trial proceedings, including the appeals process, with consequences ranging from judicial contempt proceedings, to fines, or referral to the Bar of Overseers.

Clancy’s defense team filed its argument against it this week, saying it’s a First Amendment infringement.

“The motion asks the court to restrain counsel’s speech before it occurs,” Clancy’s lawyer, Laura B. McConnell, wrote in a 6-page filing. “That is prior restraint.”

“The government bears a heavy burden to justify such an order,” McConnell continued. “It offers no evidence. There is no jury, and it is unknown whether one will ever be impaneled. There is no trial date. The motion should be denied.”

Clancy’s livestreamed trial generated intense public interest and drew attention to maternal mental health after childbirth. Clancy remains charged with murder and is expected to stay at a psychiatric hospital until her case is resolved. She has been paralyzed from the waist down since jumping from a second-story window after allegedly strangling her children.

Clancy could have been sentenced to life in prison if convicted of murder. If acquitted, the judge could have ordered her confined to a mental health facility.

The next hearing in the case is set for Monday.

Meanwhile the wrongful death lawsuit filed by Clancy’s ex-husband, Patrick Clancy, had a court hearing Wednesday. Patrick Clancy was not in attendance. He’s suing the healthcare providers who treated Lindsay Clancy in the months leading up to the 2023 deaths of their three children.

Lawyers representing Dr. Jennifer Tufts and nurse practitioner Rebecca Jollotta urged Norfolk Superior Judge Michael Doolin to dismiss Patrick Clancy’s wrongful death suit.

Patrick Clancy’s suit alleges they were negligent, and if they had provided adequate care to Lindsay Clancy, then “it is more likely than not” that the couple’s children “would still be alive today.” The suit also names Tufts’s employer, Aster Mental Health Inc., and Jollotta’s employer, South Shore Health System Inc.

In court, Patrick Clancy’s lawyer argued that Lindsay Clancy allegedly warned her therapist and nurse practitioner that she was having thoughts of harming her children. He also said Lindsay Clancy would testify to that.

But, Reddington disputed that claim, saying in a statement Wednesday in part, “Lindsay Clancy never told any of her healthcare providers that she harbored homicidal ideation toward her children. She never indicated that she intended to testify in Mr. Clancy’s lawsuit, and no one acting for her ever represented that she would. Mr. Clancy’s counsel does not speak for Lindsay Clancy.”

The judge said he would make a final ruling at a later date.

The Associated Press contributed to this report

This story uses functionality that may not work in our app. Click here to open the story in your web browser.