Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer does not want Judge William Sullivan to decide the November 2 motions on paper. In a new filing, Kevin Reddington asks to present evidence and call witnesses before the judge rules on whether the holdout juror’s conduct and the September 4 mistrial bar a second trial, the Boston Globe reported. “Due process demands a hearing when a motion raises a substantial question of juror bias or outside influence,” the motion says, according to the Globe.
If the judge agrees, the next question is what any witness could actually say. Massachusetts has a firm rule about juror testimony, set by the Supreme Judicial Court in 1979, and it limits jurors to one kind of evidence. Here is what the filing asks for, the rule it runs into, and what is set for November 2. Lindsay Clancy is presumed innocent.
What the filing asks for
- An evidentiary hearing. The defense wants to present evidence and call witnesses at the November 2 hearing in Plymouth Superior Court, rather than have the judge decide on written filings, the Globe reported. MassLive reported the filing as a request to let Clancy present evidence before the judge decides the issues tied to the mistrial and her effort to block a retrial.
- The due process argument. “The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a meaningful opportunity to be heard,” the motion says, according to the Globe. “A ruling on disputed facts without evidence provides neither.”
- The underlying motions. Clancy is asking the court to dismiss the three first-degree murder indictments on double jeopardy grounds. Reddington has also sought a “limited inquiry” into the holdout juror, including his confidential juror questionnaire, records of calls and texts during deliberations, and court records about his criminal history and a civil restraining order, the Globe reported.
The filing does not change the November 2 date. Judge Sullivan set the double jeopardy motion, the juror inquiry request and the prosecution’s gag order motion for that day at the September 29 hearing. District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not announced whether he will retry the case.
The rule: jurors may testify about outside influences, not about deliberations
The leading Massachusetts case is Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192 (1979). A juror signed an affidavit after a guilty verdict describing what went on in the jury room. The SJC held that a hearing was required, but it limited what could be explored.
The court drew a line between outside influences and the jurors’ own reasoning:
- “Our decision does not permit evidence concerning the subjective mental processes of jurors, such as the reasons for their decisions.”
- “[W]here overt factors are present by which the verdict’s validity can be objectively assessed, the law’s commitment to a just result warrants receiving evidence as to the alleged acts of misconduct. But where the juror would testify solely to matters resting in his own consciousness, the dubious value of the testimony is outweighed by the need for stability in verdicts.”
- The court called its approach a “rule limiting juror testimony to the existence of extraneous ‘disturbing’ influences,” and said juror interviews “should be initiated only if the court finds some suggestion that there were extraneous matters in the jury’s deliberations.”
The SJC admitted that “the line between overt factors and matters resting in a juror’s consciousness is not easily drawn, and difficult cases will arise.”
How that maps onto the Clancy claims
- What a juror thought, argued or how he voted. Under Fidler, that is off limits. Claims that the holdout “wasn’t following the law” go to the deliberations themselves.
- Something from outside the jury room. A phone call, a text, outside research or information that was not in evidence is the kind of “overt factor” Fidler allows a court to examine. That is why the defense focus has shifted to phone records and outside influence.
- Questionnaire answers. Whether a juror answered jury selection questions truthfully is a separate issue, measured against the records themselves, not the deliberations. We explained that standard when the motion was first filed.
Why this case is unusual
Fidler was about attacking a verdict. There was no verdict in the Clancy trial; the jury deadlocked 11 to 1 and the judge declared a mistrial. The defense is not asking to overturn a verdict but to stop a second trial, arguing the judge should have inquired into the juror before declaring the mistrial. A hung jury is the classic example of the “manifest necessity” that allows a retrial, which is why the defense is trying to show the deadlock was not a genuine one. Whether Fidler‘s limits, written for verdicts, apply the same way to a mistrial is one of the questions the judge may have to answer.
Holding an evidentiary hearing is also a matter for the judge. Granting one would not mean the motion succeeds; it would only decide how the facts get in front of the court.
What is set for November 2
- The defense motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds.
- The defense request for an inquiry into the holdout juror.
- The prosecution’s motion for a gag order on trial participants.
- A discussion of a trial date. Reddington told the court on September 29 he cannot try the case before June 2027.
Frequently asked questions
What did Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer file this week?
A motion asking to present evidence and call witnesses at the November 2 hearing before Judge Sullivan rules on the double jeopardy and juror motions, arguing that “due process demands a hearing when a motion raises a substantial question of juror bias or outside influence,” according to the Boston Globe.
Can a juror testify about what happened during deliberations in Massachusetts?
Only about extraneous influences. Under Commonwealth v. Fidler (1979), courts may receive evidence of overt outside factors, but not of jurors’ “subjective mental processes,” such as the reasons for their votes.
When is Lindsay Clancy’s next court date?
November 2, 2026, in Plymouth Superior Court.
Has a retrial been scheduled?
No. The district attorney has not announced a decision, and no trial date has been set.
Sources: Boston Globe, October 8, 2026, quoting the defense motion; MassLive, October 9, 2026 (headline and summary). We have not read the motion. Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192 (1979), read on CourtListener. Lindsay Clancy is presumed innocent. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.