Lindsay Clancy can be tried a second time. Plymouth Superior Court Judge William F. Sullivan on Monday, November 9, 2026, denied her motion to dismiss the murder indictments on double jeopardy grounds, ruling that the jury’s deadlock in her first trial created the “manifest necessity” that allows a retrial, Boston 25 News and WCVB reported.
In the same set of rulings, Sullivan refused the defense request for records about the holdout juror and for questioning that juror under oath, and he denied, without prejudice, the prosecution’s request for a gag order on the lawyers. Whether the Commonwealth will actually retry Clancy is still undecided. The case returns to court November 16. Clancy has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent.
The three rulings at a glance
| Motion | Filed by | Ruling |
|---|---|---|
| Dismiss on double jeopardy grounds | Defense | Denied |
| Records about the holdout juror, and questioning the juror under oath | Defense | Denied |
| Order limiting lawyers’ statements to the media | Prosecution | Denied without prejudice; may be renewed “if circumstances change” |
Ruling 1: Double jeopardy
Clancy’s 26-day trial ended in a mistrial on September 4, 2026, after jurors said they could not reach a unanimous verdict, Boston 25 reported. WCVB reported the jury had a reported 11 to 1 split in favor of acquittal after seven days of deliberations.
Her lawyers argued that Sullivan should have investigated whether there was cause to remove the holdout and seat an alternate rather than declare a mistrial, and that a second trial would therefore violate the Fifth Amendment’s protection against double jeopardy, according to Boston 25.
Sullivan disagreed. According to Boston 25’s account of the ruling:
- The record. Jurors began deliberating August 27. By September 2 they had deliberated about 27 hours over four days, after a trial with 90 witnesses, several experts and about 300 exhibits.
- The notes. The foreperson sent a note saying a juror was “unable to follow the instructions regarding reasonable doubt.” A note the next day said the juror had acknowledged doubt but refused to apply it as the law required.
- What the judge did. Sullivan asked each juror whether they could follow the court’s instructions. Every juror said yes. He reinstructed the whole jury on reasonable doubt and sent them back.
- Why he did not question the holdout. He wrote that questioning the holdout under those circumstances could have intruded into the substance of deliberations and coerced a juror whose position was already known to differ from the rest of the panel. “The Court’s primary concern must be protecting the fairness of the proceedings and avoiding the possibility of a coerced verdict,” Sullivan wrote.
- The conclusion. The Commonwealth met its burden of showing manifest necessity for the mistrial, so another trial would not violate Clancy’s double jeopardy rights.
That reasoning follows the Supreme Judicial Court’s 2025 decision in the Karen Read case, Read v. Commonwealth, SJC-13663, which we covered in October. There, the SJC said that 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, and it called a hung jury “a traditional example” of manifest necessity. Our October report on the Read decision and the holdout juror has more.
Ruling 2: No inquiry into the holdout juror
The defense had asked for confidential juror questionnaires, cellphone records and data, courthouse records and information about the juror’s alleged prior involvement with the criminal justice system, and to question the juror under oath about answers given during jury selection and alleged phone use during deliberations, Boston 25 reported. Those allegations surfaced in media reports after the mistrial.
Sullivan said no, for two reasons, according to Boston 25 and WCVB:
- Not material to double jeopardy. Information about alleged misconduct that surfaced after the mistrial does not change whether the mistrial was justified based on what the judge knew at the time.
- Not relevant to a retrial. A retrial would be before an entirely new jury. “Because Clancy has failed to demonstrate that the requested evidence is relevant and material to her defense at any retrial of the murder indictment, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to order production,” Sullivan wrote, as quoted by WCVB. “Nor can the Court perceive any valid justification for examining Juror Doe under oath at this point in the proceedings.”
Sullivan also raised privacy concerns, writing that granting the cellphone request without a proper basis would be “an improper intrusion into this juror’s privacy” and could discourage people from serving on juries, Boston 25 reported. The juror has not been publicly named in court, and we do not name him.
Ruling 3: No gag order, for now
Prosecutors asked for an order barring the lawyers and their agents from statements to the media “substantially likely to materially prejudice” the proceedings, pointing to defense statements about witnesses, Clancy and members of the jury, including criticism of the holdout juror, Boston 25 reported.
Sullivan found prosecutors had not shown that the defense comments posed the serious threat of harm needed to justify a prior restraint under First Amendment standards. He denied the motion without prejudice, allowing the prosecution to renew it “if circumstances change and it can demonstrate that a prior restraint is necessary,” WCVB reported. He also wrote that he expects both sides to follow the Massachusetts professional conduct rules on lawyers’ public statements, according to Boston 25.
Will there be a second trial?
The ruling makes a retrial legally possible. It does not require one. That decision belongs to Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz.
- Last week, when Sullivan asked prosecutors whether they planned to retry Clancy, Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague said, “We’re not at that point yet,” WCVB reported.
- Cruz has said he would “be talking more” about the path forward after the November 16 hearing, according to WCVB.
- At the November 2 hearing, Sullivan said that if the motion to dismiss was denied, “we can pick a trial date,” NBC10 Boston reported then, and CBS Boston reported he was leaning toward March. Boston 25 reported Monday that no retrial date has been set.
Clancy is charged with killing her children Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, at their Duxbury home on January 24, 2023. Her defense argued she was not criminally responsible because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.
Frequently asked questions
Will Lindsay Clancy be retried?
A retrial is now legally allowed after Judge Sullivan denied her double jeopardy motion on November 9, 2026. Whether the Commonwealth retries her is up to District Attorney Timothy Cruz, who said he would talk more after the November 16 hearing.
Why did the Lindsay Clancy trial end in a mistrial?
The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. The mistrial was declared September 4, 2026, after notes about a juror the others said would not apply the reasonable doubt instruction.
What is manifest necessity?
The standard that allows a retrial after a mistrial the defendant did not agree to. The SJC has called a hung jury “a traditional example” of manifest necessity.
Did the judge investigate the holdout juror?
No. He ruled that allegations about the juror that surfaced after the mistrial were not material to double jeopardy and not relevant to a retrial before a new jury.
Is there a gag order in the Clancy case?
No. The judge denied the prosecution’s request without prejudice, meaning it can be renewed if circumstances change.
When is Lindsay Clancy’s next court date?
November 16, 2026, in Plymouth Superior Court.
Sources: Boston 25 News and WCVB, November 9, 2026, describing Judge Sullivan’s rulings; NBC10 Boston and CBS Boston, November 2, 2026. Read v. Commonwealth, SJC-13663 (2025), as described in our October 23 report. General information, not legal advice.