Judge William Sullivan did not rule Monday on whether Lindsay Clancy can be tried a second time. After a hearing of just under three hours in Plymouth Superior Court, he took her double jeopardy motion to dismiss, the defense request to investigate the holdout juror, and the prosecution’s request for a gag order under advisement, CBS Boston and NBC10 Boston reported. Boston 25 News also reported that the motions were taken under advisement.
He set the next hearing for Monday, November 16, and said what it is for. “I’m thinking of picking a date basically for me to report to all of you, is the motion to dismiss allowed or not allowed. If it’s not allowed, we can pick a trial date,” Sullivan said, according to NBC10. He said he is leaning toward March for a second trial, CBS reported.
Clancy, who is charged with murdering her three children in Duxbury in January 2023, has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent. Her first trial ended in a mistrial on September 4 with the jury split 11 to 1 for a verdict of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.
What happened, motion by motion
| Motion | Result Monday | What comes next |
|---|---|---|
| Defense motion to dismiss (double jeopardy) | Taken under advisement | Sullivan said he expects to report whether it is allowed on November 16 |
| Defense motion about the holdout juror’s records | No ruling | Pending |
| Prosecution motion for a gag order | Taken under advisement | Pending |
| Trial date | Not set | To be picked November 16 if the motion to dismiss is denied; the judge is leaning toward March |
The double jeopardy argument
Defense lawyer Martin Weinberg argued that two notes from the jury “cried out on behalf of the foreperson,” CBS reported, and that the judge should at least have questioned the jurors to find out whether the holdout was deliberating in good faith. “A probing voir dire could have disclosed that the 12th juror was not following instructions,” he said.
Sullivan pushed back from the bench. “Didn’t I do that? Didn’t I do a voir dire? Didn’t I swear the jurors in? Didn’t I ask each one? And the concerns of coercion is something I have to worry about. Are you saying I should have done it a second time?” he asked, according to CBS.
Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague said the foreperson’s note that the holdout was not following the instruction on reasonable doubt was “basically their opinion,” that the notes alleged no lack of impartiality, and that reports about the jurors after the trial are “completely irrelevant.” “It is clear from the record that this juror did not refuse to deliberate. He refused to agree,” she said. NBC10 reported that she told the judge she had learned that morning of an Appeals Court decision she says supports her position.
The legal test is the one the Supreme Judicial Court applied in Karen Read’s case, Read v. Commonwealth, SJC-13663 (2025): when a defendant objects to a mistrial, a retrial is allowed only if the mistrial was a “manifest necessity,” judged “based on what was known at the time.” Weinberg, who also represented Read, told the court that the Read decision involved a different issue, NBC10 reported. How that argument played out for Read.
The fight over the holdout juror
The sharpest exchanges came on the defense motion about the holdout juror’s records. When defense lawyer Kevin Reddington began to name the juror, Sullivan cut in. “I’m going to stop you right there,” the judge said. “No. You’re not going to stop me,” Reddington answered. “I am,” Sullivan said. “Because there’s no need to bring out that juror’s name,” according to CBS. NBC10 and CBS both reported the exchange.
Reddington told the court he had evidence that the juror “was not honest” on his juror questionnaire. CBS reported that Reddington said the juror did not disclose an abuse prevention order and a 2021 arrest; NBC10 reported the arrest claim. These are the defense lawyer’s statements in court. The juror has not been found to have done anything wrong, and the judge did not rule on them. Sullivan said the questionnaire is confidential by statute, NBC10 reported, and the lawyers discussed the matter at sidebar.
Sprague asked that the motion be denied “on its face,” saying it would be “potentially opening the door” to examining every juror’s statements and actions.
The juror’s own lawyer, Heather O’Connor, also argued. She said the defense questioned him with only two questions before accepting him on the jury, and that none of the jury’s notes complained of outside information, phone use or a refusal to deliberate. “We are here because Juror Doe did not vote the way the defense needed,” she said. “If that’s enough to put a juror under oath, to search their phone, to pull their history, then the lesson to every future juror in this commonwealth is simple. Agree with the majority, or potentially be investigated,” she said, according to CBS.
We are not naming the juror.
The gag order
Sprague argued that Reddington has made “calculated” public statements that could taint the jury pool for a retrial, and that moving the trial would not help: “Where could we go where someone hasn’t heard of this case?” she asked, CBS reported. NBC10 reported that she pointed to Reddington’s effort to seek a presidential pardon and to a comment he made about hiring the judge after he retires. She said she would accept the same limits on the prosecution. “I am not looking for 15 minutes of fame in this case. What the Commonwealth wants in this case is justice for Cora, Dawson, and Callan,” she said.
Defense lawyer Laura McConnell said the defense has not been litigating the case in the media, and that because Clancy has given no interviews, Reddington is her voice, CBS reported. The defense calls a gag order an unconstitutional prior restraint. The law on gag orders and prior restraint.
Will Lindsay Clancy be retried?
Prosecutors said the most they have said so far, but not everything. “This would be a retrial,” Sprague said, according to CBS, adding that the office has not decided “how that will look.” Asked by the judge whether a second trial could be on a lesser charge, she said, “We’re not at that point yet,” and that the District Attorney’s Office will decide its next steps after the rulings on the pending motions, including any appeals, NBC10 reported.
Reddington objected to the delay. “Why do we not know if the next trial is going to be murder in the first degree or a lesser charge or no charge?” he asked. He called Sullivan’s coming retirement “the elephant in the room” and said he wants to try the case again before the same judge: “I want a trial, I want it with you, and I want it this spring,” according to NBC10.
What November 16 can bring
- Motion to dismiss allowed. The murder indictments would be dismissed on double jeopardy grounds and there would be no second trial, unless the Commonwealth appeals and wins.
- Motion to dismiss denied. Sullivan said the parties can then pick a trial date. Clancy could ask the Supreme Judicial Court to review the ruling before a retrial, as Read’s lawyers did.
- Charges. Separately, the District Attorney’s Office still has to decide whether a retrial would be on first-degree murder or a lesser charge.
The juror and gag order motions could be decided before then, in writing. We will update this post and the Clancy court calendar when they are.
Frequently asked questions
What happened at Lindsay Clancy’s hearing on November 2?
Judge William Sullivan heard arguments on the defense motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, a defense motion about the holdout juror’s records and the prosecution’s request for a gag order. He did not rule on any of them and set another hearing for November 16.
When is Lindsay Clancy’s next court date?
Monday, November 16, 2026, in Plymouth Superior Court. The judge said he plans to tell the parties then whether the motion to dismiss is allowed, and to pick a trial date if it is not.
Is there a date for the Lindsay Clancy retrial?
No. The judge said he is leaning toward March, CBS Boston reported, but a date will not be set unless the motion to dismiss is denied.
Will Lindsay Clancy be tried for first-degree murder again?
Not decided. The prosecutor said the office has not decided what a retrial would look like and will decide after the judge rules on the pending motions, including any appeals.
Why didn’t the judge let the defense name the holdout juror?
Sullivan said there was “no need” to name him in the courtroom, and that his juror questionnaire is confidential by statute. Massachusetts courts generally protect jurors’ identities and do not examine how individual jurors reasoned during deliberations.
Sources: CBS Boston and NBC10 Boston, reporting from the courtroom on November 2, 2026; Boston 25 News, November 2, 2026. Quotations are as reported by those outlets; we have not reviewed a transcript. Reported start times for the November 16 hearing differ, so we have not listed one. Read v. Commonwealth, SJC-13663 (2025), read on CourtListener. Statements by lawyers about the holdout juror are allegations made in argument and have not been tested. Lindsay Clancy is presumed innocent. General information, not legal advice.