Update, September 29, 2026. Later reporting: the holdout juror’s Massachusetts lawyer is Heather O’Connor, Fox News Digital reported. Reddington told the court he is not available for a retrial until June 2027; Sullivan said he did not want the case “kicked down the road” and wants a trial-date discussion on November 2 (what that means). District Attorney Timothy Cruz told reporters his office still has not decided on a retrial, LA Magazine reported. Lawyers for the Boston Globe and WBZ argued for access to sealed sidebars, and Reddington told the judge he was “tired of hearing about me persecuting people” (the exchange).
Update, September 29, 2026. More from the courtroom. Reddington argued there was “no evidence that she made any statements as far as the actual killing of the children, which forms the basis of the indictments,” and told the judge Clancy “died in the hospital” and needed “massive transfusions” after her suicide attempt; Clancy looked away as he said it, Fox News Digital reported. Prosecutors called the argument “a laughable argument.” Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham told the court this was the first time Reddington had questioned whether Clancy killed her children, and argued her motive was that she felt she would never be the same, according to Boston 25’s Bob Ward. On Weinberg’s motion about the sealed jury notes and sidebars, Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague argued granting it would harm the jury system; Sullivan took it under advisement. No trial date was set and the Commonwealth did not announce a retrial decision.
Lindsay Clancy came back to court Tuesday for the first time since her mistrial, and left without an answer. Judge William Sullivan heard argument on her motion to be found not guilty and took it under advisement, meaning he will rule later in writing. Almost everything else was pushed to November 2, 2026.
Here is what happened in Plymouth Superior Court on September 29, from reporters in the courtroom, and from the two filings prosecutors made the day before, which we read in full.
What the judge did
- Motion for a required finding of not guilty: under advisement. Both sides argued it. Sullivan did not rule from the bench.
- Double jeopardy motion to dismiss: continued to November 2. According to independent reporter Charista Snell, the defense said it was ready to argue, but prosecutors objected that they received the motion only the previous Monday and learned Friday that the defense wanted to argue it Tuesday. Sullivan agreed they needed more time.
- Juror inquiry: November 2. The motion for an inquiry into the holdout juror is set for the same day. Sullivan told the lawyer for the juror, a Massachusetts attorney appearing for him, to file a clearer written request, saying the filing was not clear about what she wanted access to. She said many of the relevant documents are impounded, so she cannot see them to know what to ask for.
- Gag order: November 2. Fox News Digital reported Sullivan would not rule Tuesday on the prosecutors’ request; Snell reported he set it for November 2 so both sides would be prepared to argue it.
- Sealed jury notes and sidebars: under advisement. Defense lawyer Martin Weinberg argued a separate motion concerning notes and sidebar discussions from the final two days of deliberations, September 3 and 4, according to Fox’s Michael Ruiz. The Commonwealth asked the judge to deny it. Sullivan took it under advisement.
No retrial decision or trial date had been reported when this was published.
The arguments on the not-guilty motion
The defense. Kevin Reddington went beyond criminal responsibility and attacked the investigation. He questioned the absence of smeared blood along Clancy’s path to the upstairs window and the claim that crushed pills were found in a cup on a nightstand. “There was no investigation,” he said, according to Fox’s Michael Ruiz. Boston 25’s Bob Ward quoted him as adding, “It was not even horrendous it was ridiculous.” He ended by arguing the Commonwealth did not prove Clancy was not suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time. His written motion asks for findings of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.
The Commonwealth. Prosecutors argued the defense was attacking the underlying evidence in a way it had not at trial, according to Snell, and that the “voluminous record” was sufficient. Ruiz reported prosecutors told the court Clancy told a hospital chaplain she was having hallucinations and had to kill the children.
Their written opposition, filed September 28, lays out the standard they want applied. It relies on Commonwealth v. Lawson, 475 Mass. 806 (2016), which holds that on such a motion a judge “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and must disregard contrary evidence presented by the defendant, including the testimony of a defense expert, unless the contrary evidence demonstrates that the Commonwealth’s evidence, or any inference drawn from such evidence, is ‘conclusively incorrect.'” Lawson itself adds that “it will be the rare case where the totality of the evidence regarding the defendant’s conduct and the circumstances surrounding the offense will not be sufficient to defeat” such a motion.
The opposition also tells the judge what not to consider: “any alleged information regarding jury deliberations nor the potential collateral issues regarding the outcome of what would happen to the defendant” if he entered a finding of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. In other words, the eleven-to-one split and the fact that she would be committed rather than released are, in the Commonwealth’s view, off limits.
The filing recites the evidence it says showed planning: that on the afternoon of January 24, 2023, Clancy searched for children’s MiraLAX and the restaurant, checked the drive time in Apple Maps, called CVS, and ordered takeout for Patrick Clancy to pick up. It also notes the jury heard from 72 Commonwealth witnesses and that the court had already denied her motion for a required finding three times during trial.
The gag order request, in the prosecutors’ words
The Commonwealth’s “Motion to Preclude Prejudicial Extrajudicial Statements to the Media,” also filed September 28, is aimed squarely at Reddington. It says defense counsel “has engaged in substantial publicity pre-trial, during trial, and post-trial that has inevitably tainted any further venire.” It lists his post-trial television interviews, his request for a presidential pardon, and “most disturbing,” his comments about the deliberating jurors, including referring to the holdout as “he” at a time when the jury contained only three men, “in ways that ensured that the juror would be publicly identified.” It describes the trial as a “carnival atmosphere.”
The proposed order would apply to “all defense counsel, prosecutors, their staff, investigators, consultants” and law enforcement officers in the case. It would bar statements about “the identity or conduct of any discharged juror,” disclosure of non-public information, and contact with discharged jurors outside court proceedings except as authorized. It would last through any retrial. Violations could bring contempt, monetary penalties, or referral to the Board of Bar Overseers. We explained the law on gagging trial lawyers in this morning’s report.
Outside the courtroom
- Reddington declined to answer reporters’ questions on the way in, WCVB reported.
- A few supporters in pink “Justice for Lindsay” shirts stood outside, according to Fox News Digital.
- The holdout juror, Michael Desronvil, did not attend. In a video statement aired on Fox News’ “Hannity,” his first public comments, he said: “I know the whole focus has been on me, but we want to reel everything back and put the focus on the three angels.”
What comes next
- A written ruling on the not-guilty motion, any time. If Sullivan allows it, it is an acquittal the Commonwealth has little ability to appeal, as we explained in our preview of the four outcomes. If he denies it, the case moves toward November 2.
- November 2: double jeopardy, the juror inquiry, and the gag order.
- The retrial decision, which remains District Attorney Timothy Cruz’s.
Frequently asked questions
What happened at Lindsay Clancy’s hearing on September 29?
Judge William Sullivan heard argument on her motion for a required finding of not guilty and took it under advisement. He continued the double jeopardy motion, the holdout juror inquiry and the prosecutors’ gag order request to November 2, 2026.
Did the judge dismiss the Clancy case?
No. The not-guilty motion is under advisement and the double jeopardy motion to dismiss will be heard November 2.
Is Lindsay Clancy being retried?
No retrial decision had been announced as of September 29, 2026. That decision belongs to Plymouth District Attorney Timothy Cruz.
When is Lindsay Clancy’s next court date?
November 2, 2026, in Plymouth Superior Court, unless the judge rules earlier on the pending not-guilty motion.
What does “under advisement” mean?
The judge has heard the arguments and will decide later, usually in a written decision. There is no deadline.
Sources: Courtroom reporting posted September 29, 2026 by Charista Snell, Michael Ruiz (Fox News Digital), Bob Ward (Boston 25) and WCVB; Fox News Digital live coverage, September 29, 2026. Commonwealth’s Opposition to Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty and Commonwealth’s Motion to Preclude Prejudicial Extrajudicial Statements to the Media with proposed order, both filed September 28, 2026, read in full (scanned documents, text by optical character recognition). Commonwealth v. Lawson, 475 Mass. 806 (2016), verified and read. Lindsay Clancy is presumed innocent. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.