Judge William F. Sullivan will not find Lindsay Clancy not guilty. In a written decision issued Thursday, October 1, 2026, the Plymouth Superior Court judge denied her motion for a required finding of not guilty on all three murder indictments, ruling that prosecutors had put in enough evidence for a jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she killed her three children and was criminally responsible when she did it.
Legal commentators told WBUR the outcome was expected. It still matters more than a routine denial usually does, because this motion was one of only two ways Clancy could stop a second trial before it starts. One of those doors is now closed at the trial-court level. The other is set for November 2.
What the judge ruled
The defense, led by Kevin Reddington, argued at the September 29 hearing that the Commonwealth’s evidence fell short on two elements: who killed Cora, Dawson and Callan Clancy, and whether their mother was criminally responsible at the time. Sullivan rejected both arguments.
“There was evidence introduced, both physical and circumstantial, that would permit a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the charge of murder,” he wrote, according to WBUR and Fox Television Stations, which both quoted the order.
Identity. According to Boston 25 News, which summarized the decision, the judge pointed to evidence that Clancy was alone with the children on January 24, 2023, while Patrick Clancy left the Duxbury home to pick up takeout food and medication. Surveillance video corroborated his account of the trip to a Plymouth CVS and a restaurant. When he returned, he found blood in an upstairs bedroom, found Clancy injured outside beneath an open window, called 911, and then found the children in the basement with exercise bands around their necks. Medical examiners testified the children died of asphyxia or complications of mechanical asphyxia.
Criminal responsibility. Experts on both sides testified that Clancy had a serious mental illness at the time. Sullivan wrote that mental illness alone does not prevent a finding of criminal responsibility, Boston 25 reported. Three prosecution experts testified she did not lack the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the law. The defense experts disagreed, but the judge held that weighing conflicting experts is the jury’s job, not his.
The legal test, and why the defense almost never wins it
A motion for a required finding under Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 25 does not ask the judge who has the better case. It asks one narrow question, set out in Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (1979): taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, could any rational trier of fact have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt? Sullivan’s “rational trier of fact” language tracks that test word for word.
On criminal responsibility the bar for the defense is higher still. The Commonwealth’s written opposition relied on Commonwealth v. Lawson, 475 Mass. 806 (2016), which says it will be “the rare case” where a judge takes the question away from the jury. When the Commonwealth’s own experts testify that the defendant was responsible, a judge who follows Latimore has to credit that testimony for purposes of the motion, even if the defense experts were more persuasive to some jurors. Eleven of the twelve jurors in this trial reportedly favored a verdict of not criminally responsible. Under Latimore, that does not matter. The test looks at what a jury could do, not what this jury nearly did.
Boston criminal defense lawyer Keith Halpern, who is not involved in the case, told WBUR the motion was “something that any lawyer in his position would’ve done,” and that the ruling “really has no bearing on anything going forward.” That is true of the merits. It is less true of the double jeopardy picture.
Why this ruling closes a door on double jeopardy
A hung jury does not ordinarily bar a retrial. But the Supreme Judicial Court carved out an important exception in Berry v. Commonwealth, 393 Mass. 793 (1985). Berry’s first jury deadlocked after four days and the judge declared a mistrial. Berry conceded that if the Commonwealth had presented evidence legally sufficient to convict, double jeopardy would not bar a second trial. His argument was that the evidence had not been sufficient, and that the Commonwealth was not entitled to a second chance to fill the gap. The SJC agreed and ordered the indictment dismissed.
Berry is the reason a Rule 25 motion after a hung jury is more than a formality. If Sullivan had found the evidence insufficient, the result would have been an acquittal, and no retrial could follow. By finding the evidence sufficient, he has rejected the Berry route, at least in the Superior Court. Berry himself reached the SJC after a Superior Court judge denied his motion, through a single justice who reported the case to the full court. Whether Clancy’s lawyers try a similar path has not been reported.
The other door: the November 2 double jeopardy motion
The second double jeopardy argument does not depend on the strength of the evidence. Martin Weinberg, who entered a limited appearance for Clancy in September, filed a motion arguing the September 4 mistrial was not a “manifest necessity” because the court did not inquire into the holdout juror before declaring it. That motion, a related request for an inquiry of the juror, and the prosecutors’ request for a gag order were all continued to November 2. We analyzed Weinberg’s theory and how the SJC handled a similar argument from Karen Read here.
Thursday’s decision does not decide that motion. It also does not decide Weinberg’s separate request to unseal the September 3 jury note and the sidebar conferences from the last days of deliberation. According to WBUR, Sullivan is still considering several motions from both sides, including a defense motion to dismiss.
What has not changed
- No retrial decision. District Attorney Timothy Cruz’s office has said it is still evaluating whether to retry Clancy and whether to pursue first-degree murder charges again, according to WBUR.
- No trial date. Sullivan told the parties on September 29 to be ready to discuss one on November 2. Reddington told the court he could not try the case before June 2027. Our court calendar has every date.
Frequently asked questions
Did the judge find Lindsay Clancy guilty?
No. Denying a motion for a required finding of not guilty is not a finding of guilt. It means only that the evidence was strong enough that a jury could have convicted. Clancy is presumed innocent, and her first trial ended in a mistrial on September 4, 2026.
What is a motion for a required finding of not guilty?
A request under Mass. R. Crim. P. 25 asking the judge to rule that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could not support a conviction. If allowed, it is an acquittal and ends the case.
Does this mean Lindsay Clancy will be retried?
Not by itself. The district attorney has not announced whether he will seek a retrial, and the defense’s double jeopardy motion based on how the mistrial was declared is still pending, with a hearing set for November 2, 2026.
Can the defense appeal the denial?
There is generally no immediate appeal from the denial of this motion in a case that has not ended in a conviction. In Berry v. Commonwealth, a defendant whose motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds was denied after a hung jury obtained review through a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court. Whether Clancy’s lawyers will seek similar review has not been reported.
When is Lindsay Clancy’s next court date?
November 2, 2026, in Plymouth Superior Court.
Sources: WBUR, October 1, 2026 (quotations from the order; Keith Halpern interview); Boston 25 News, October 1, 2026 (summary of the decision’s evidence findings); Fox Television Stations / LiveNOW, October 1, 2026. We have not obtained the written decision itself; quotations are as reported by those outlets. Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (1979), and Berry v. Commonwealth, 393 Mass. 793 (1985), read on CourtListener. Lindsay Clancy is presumed innocent. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.