Prosecutors have formally asked Judge William Sullivan to let the Commonwealth try Lindsay Clancy again. In a 30-page opposition filed Monday, October 26, 2026, Plymouth Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague argued that the September 4 mistrial was legally justified and that double jeopardy does not bar a second trial. “At every turn, the court carefully explored the alternatives to avoid a mistrial,” the filing says, according to the Boston Globe. Two days later, Clancy’s defense team answered the prosecution’s request for a gag order with a six-page filing calling it “prior restraint.”
Both motions are set to be argued Monday, November 2, in Plymouth Superior Court. The filings were reported by the Boston Globe, WCVB and Boston 25 News. Here is what each side now says, the law the judge applies, and what can happen Monday. Lindsay Clancy is presumed innocent.
What prosecutors argue
- The jury was truly deadlocked. “The Commonwealth submits that the court properly declared a mistrial due to the manifest necessity after the jury had twice reported that it was deadlocked following due and thorough deliberation,” Sprague wrote, according to Boston 25 News. “As such, double jeopardy does not operate to bar the Commonwealth from seeking justice on behalf of the three victims.”
- Questioning one juror would have been coercion. The defense says Sullivan should have questioned the holdout juror and possibly replaced him with an alternate. Sprague argued that singling out a juror for inquiry would amount to judicial coercion and an intrusion into the jury’s deliberations, the Globe reported. She wrote that Sullivan instead properly conducted a limited inquiry of each juror and then instructed the jury as a whole on reasonable doubt.
- The Karen Read decision. Prosecutors cite the Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling in the Karen Read case, which rejected letting “post-trial juror revelations about their deliberations to affect the analysis,” WCVB reported. Sullivan relied on the same decision last week when he refused the defense’s request for an evidentiary hearing on the juror. We covered that ruling here.
What the defense argues about the gag order
District Attorney Timothy Cruz’s office asked in late September for an order to “preclude prejudicial extrajudicial statements to the media.” It would cover prosecutors, defense lawyers and law enforcement, and as requested it would last until all post-trial proceedings end, including appeals, with possible contempt, fines or referral to the Board of Bar Overseers for violations, the Globe reported.
- “Prior restraint.” “The motion asks the court to restrain counsel’s speech before it occurs,” defense lawyer Laura B. McConnell wrote, according to the Globe. “That is prior restraint.”
- No evidence, no jury. “The government asks the court to restrain counsel’s speech without evidence, to protect a jury that doesn’t exist, a trial that has not even been scheduled, under an order that singles out one side’s speech about discharged jurors,” McConnell wrote, the Globe reported. WCVB reported that the defense argues the Commonwealth has not shown enough reason to justify limits after the mistrial.
The law on retrial after a hung jury
When a defendant objects to a mistrial, a retrial is allowed only if the mistrial was manifestly necessary. In Read v. Commonwealth, SJC-13663 (February 11, 2025), the SJC called a hung jury “a traditional example” of manifest necessity, left the decision to the trial judge’s “sound discretion,” and said a reviewing court will “assess the trial judge’s decision based on what was known at the time of her decision.” The court asks whether the judge carefully explored “alternatives to a mistrial” and whether counsel were “given full opportunity to be heard.” That is why Sprague’s filing leans on the phrase “at every turn”: the question on November 2 is whether Sullivan did enough before he declared the mistrial, not what has been learned about the juror since.
The law on gagging lawyers
- The ethics rule already applies. Rule 3.6(a) of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct bars a lawyer in a case from making a public statement the lawyer “knows or reasonably should know” will have “a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”
- Lawyers get less protection than the press. In Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the speech of lawyers representing clients in pending cases may be regulated under a less demanding standard than that established for regulation of the press,” and that the “substantial likelihood of material prejudice” test “constitutes a constitutionally permissible balance between the First Amendment rights of attorneys in pending cases and the State’s interest in fair trials.”
- Why the defense says “prior restraint.” Gentile was a discipline case: the lawyer was punished after he spoke. A gag order stops speech in advance. That distinction is the core of McConnell’s filing, and it is why she argues the Commonwealth has to show specific evidence of harm to a future jury, which she says it has not done.
What can happen November 2
- Motion to dismiss granted. If Sullivan finds the mistrial was not manifestly necessary, double jeopardy would bar a retrial and the murder indictments would be dismissed. The Commonwealth could appeal.
- Motion denied. The case stays open, and Cruz would have to decide whether to retry Clancy. His office has not said whether it will, the Globe and WCVB reported. Clancy’s lawyers could seek review in the SJC, as Read’s lawyers did.
- Gag order. Sullivan could grant it, deny it, or issue a narrower order. He could also take either motion under advisement, as he did with Clancy’s not-guilty motion in September.
The jury was split 11 to 1 in favor of acquitting Clancy when the mistrial was declared, the Globe and WCVB reported. If convicted of murder, Clancy could be sentenced to life in prison; if found not guilty by reason of insanity, the judge could commit her to a mental health facility, the Globe reported.
Frequently asked questions
Will Lindsay Clancy be retried?
Not decided. Prosecutors are opposing her motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, but District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not announced whether his office will try her again. The motion will be argued November 2, 2026.
What did prosecutors file in the Lindsay Clancy case?
A 30-page opposition, filed October 26, 2026, arguing the September 4 mistrial was manifestly necessary because the jury twice reported it was deadlocked, and that questioning the holdout juror would have been coercive.
Is there a gag order in the Lindsay Clancy case?
Not yet. Prosecutors asked for one in late September. On October 28, 2026, Clancy’s lawyers filed an opposition calling it unconstitutional prior restraint. Judge Sullivan is expected to hear it November 2.
What does manifest necessity mean?
It is the standard a court uses to decide whether a mistrial declared over the defendant’s objection allows a second trial. A genuinely deadlocked jury is the traditional example. If the mistrial was not manifestly necessary, double jeopardy bars a retrial.
Sources: Boston Globe, WCVB and Boston 25 News, October 28 and 29, 2026. We have not reviewed the filings themselves; quotations are as reported. Read v. Commonwealth, SJC-13663 (2025), and Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991), read on CourtListener; Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.6. Lindsay Clancy is presumed innocent. General information, not legal advice.