Lindsay Clancy could potentially face new trial in March 2027

Judge William Sullivan said at a hearing on Monday he would like a potential retrial of Lindsay Clancy to begin in March 2027.

Sullivan came short of firmly setting a trial date, indicating he would like to rule on pending motions before moving forward with a definitive date.

Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague declined to say how prosecutors plan to potentially approach the case, but signaled the case is headed for a new trial. 

Clancy appeared in the Massachusetts courtroom for the hearing that could determine the future of her triple murder case in the deaths of her children.

At the hearing, parties argued issues including Clancy's motion to dismiss the case, the prosecution's request for a gag order, a request to access court and phone records related to the holdout juror in her previous trial and a potential future trial date.

Sullivan said he hopes to rule on pending motions by a Nov. 16 conference.

Below were some of the key moments at Monday's hearing.

Motion to dismiss 

Clancy's attorneys asked Sullivan to dismiss the case, arguing that he failed to fully investigate whether the holdout juror who forced the mistrial properly followed the court's instructions on the law.

Attorney Martin Weinberg argued that retrying the case would violate Clancy's right against double jeopardy, saying another trial would subject Clancy "to live with a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity ... knowing about the stakes in living through the first trial ."

Weinberg argued that the concerns about the holdout juror, and notes sent to the court concerning the juror's behavior, "goes to the heart of what American criminal justice gives to defendants."

Weinberg said, "We contend based on these juror notes, and again respectfully, that they do not unambiguously support the proposition that all 12 jurors were deliberating and following your Honor's instructions."

While the argument is effectively asking the judge to throw out the case based on mistakes he allegedly made, Sullivan told the defense that he "understands" the argument and doesn't take it personally.

Sprague argued that Sullivan properly asked each juror to confirm they were following the court's instructions, rather than delving into the substance of deliberations.

"It is clear from the record that this juror did not refuse to deliberate. He refused to agree," Sprague countered.

"It's not for the trial judge to choose sides in a deadlock jury and decide," she added.

Sullivan took the motion to dismiss under advisement rather than decide it from the bench. 

Sullivan also heard arguments about prosecutors' request to impose a gag order on the case.

Argument about holdout juror gets heated

The hearing got heated after Reddington named the holdout juror, who has since spoken publicly about his experience.

"You don't bring your background into a jury room and suppress it, as was done in this case. This gentleman, Mr. Desronvil--," Reddington said before he got cut off by Judge William Sullivan.

"I'm going to stop you right there," the judge said.

"No, you're not going to stop me," Reddington shot back.

"Well, I am," the judge said.

"No, you're not," Reddington said. 

Reddington argued he should be able to use the juror's name because "it's all over the internet."

"That's through the internet; that's through other people. There is no need, here in this courtroom, to use that," the judge said.

The exchange took place during an argument about a request to access court and phone records related to the holdout juror. Prosecutors argued that the motion should be denied in its entirety.

The holdout juror -- who identified himself as Michael Péguy Desronvil -- said in statements and an interview following the trial that he had no doubts about her guilt.

Future trial date 

The judge said he would like a new trial to begin in March, though he did not firmly set a trial date during today's hearing. 

Sullivan said he hopes to rule on the three pending motions by the Nov. 16 conference.

"I'm thinking sometime in March if we can do that, or earlier if possible. But I think March is probably realistic," Sullivan said about his preference for a trial date. 

"Has the Commonwealth made a decision how they're going to proceed with this case?" Sullivan asked the prosecution. 

"This would be a retrial," she said. "As to what that looks like will depend. We're not at that point yet. I think once we get the decision on the motions and see what happens from there, then we would decide what that looks like. But it would be a retrial."

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington said he is in favor of a Spring trial and wants it to proceed in front of Sullivan, who is facing a mandatory retirement. 

"I am not going to have this woman sit incarcerated for the next year or two or three. I want a trial, and I want it with you, and I want it this spring," said Kevin Reddington.