Double jeopardy: Clancy defense argues judge mishandled jury notes

Lindsay Clancy appeared before Judge William Sullivan on Monday to argue that the state should drop the murder charges against her. Her attorney, Martin G. Weinberg, filed a motion seeking dismissal under double jeopardy rules. He contended that procedural errors during the September trial created a mistrial that prevents the Commonwealth from retrying the 36-year-old.

The case stems from the deaths of Clancy’s three young children in 2023. She has always admitted to killing them. Her legal team maintains she suffered from postpartum psychosis and could not control her actions. Prosecutors counter that she had mental health issues but acted with deliberate intent and knew her conduct was wrong.

The dispute centers on how the judge handled a deadlocked jury. During deliberations, the foreperson sent two notes to Sullivan indicating that one juror was not following the rules. The holdout was Michael Desronvil. Sullivan subsequently spoke with each juror individually. He reminded them of their duties and clarified the standard for reasonable doubt. All jurors stated they could apply the law to the case. The jury ultimately failed to reach a verdict, resulting in a mistrial.

Weinberg argued that Sullivan stopped short of necessary investigation. The defense lawyer suggested that further questioning of the foreperson would have revealed grounds to remove Desronvil. He claimed the judge should have probed deeper to understand what was happening inside the jury room. “That’s what the foreperson was asking the court to do,” Weinberg said. He also told the judge, “I can see that this is not easy.” Sullivan responded, “You don’t have to keep saying that. I have thick skin.”

Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague defended the judge’s approach. She argued that pressing the foreperson further would have intruded on the substance of the deliberations. She told Sullivan that he was in the best position to judge the jurors' credibility because he looked them in the eye during questioning. “And you credited their answers,” she said. Sprague emphasized that Desronvil did not refuse to deliberate based on personal reasons. “It is clear from the record that this juror did not refuse to deliberate,” she stated. “He refused to agree.”

Desronvil has since said he was certain of Clancy’s guilt but felt no one would listen to him. The prosecution maintains that double jeopardy does not bar the state from seeking justice for the three victims. Sullivan has not yet ruled on the motion. The next step in the legal process is pending the judge's decision on the defense's bid to dismiss the case.

The hearing marked the second time Clancy has been in court since the trial ended in September. Her legal team continues to push for the charges to be dropped based on the jury irregularities. The outcome will determine whether the state can attempt a new trial.