From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Lindsay Clancy's case will be back in court on Sept. 29, a key hearing
that could mark a major turning point in the closely watched legal
battle for the mother accused of killing her three young children.

Her first trial ended after a deadlocked jury couldn't unanimously agree
on a verdict Sept. 4. Now, a court hearing could bring a sudden and
dramatic end to the case u or another step toward a new trial.

Prosecutors are expected to reveal more about their plans to retry or
drop the case. Meanwhile, the defense will urge the judge to find Clancy
not guilty and to investigate a holdout juror.

Prosecutors alleged Clancy, 36, deliberately planned to kill her three
young children at the family's Duxbury, Massachusetts home in January
2023. Clancy's defense team did not dispute that she fatally strangled 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan, but argued
that she should not be held criminally responsible because she was experiencing postpartum psychosis at the time, more commonly known as an insanity defense.

After weeks of testimony and 38 hours of deliberations, the jury
remained split 11 to 1 on whether Clancy should be convicted of murder.
Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial Sept. 4 and ordered both
sides to return to court at 9 a.m. local time on Sept. 29 for a status
and trial assignment hearing.

Clancy's defense team has also asked the court to consider a motion to
dismiss the case on double jeopardy grounds. Plymouth County District
Attorney Timothy Cruz has not yet said whether he intends to retry
Clancy for first-degree murder, for a lesser charge like manslaughter or
forgo a second trial altogether, but that could also be addressed at the hearing, according to David Rossman, professor of law emeritus at Boston University. Cruz's office and Clancy's defense team did not respond to requests for comment from USA TODAY.

"I think it's likely that the DA's office will stick with the original
charges just because he's that kind of prosecutor," said Rossman.
"Timothy Cruz is not likely to seek an easier way out."

Clancy defense team pushes for not guilty verdict, again
Sullivan set the Sept. 29 court date for arguments on one defense
motion, and Clancy's defense has asked to present at least one more. One motion is calling for "a required finding of not guilty" and the other
seeks more information about the holdout juror in the case.

Under Massachusetts law, a defendant can ask the court to find them not
guilty on the basis that the evidence is insufficient for a conviction.
It can be filed when evidence is completed, which defense attorney Kevin Reddington did in Clancy's case. If a judge denies the motion u as
Sullivan did u it can be renewed within five days after the jury is discharged.

Reddington filed that renewed motion on Sept. 10, according to court
records, arguing that the prosecution's evidence did not sufficiently
prove Clancy understood what she did was wrong despite her serious
mental illness. He said Clancy's actions around the time of the
killings, which witnesses for the prosecution cited as the basis of
their opinions, at best "show that Ms. Clancy could perform familiar
tasks and act in sequence."

"They do not show that she could appreciate the wrongfulness or conform
her conduct to the law," the motion said.

Clancy's attorney cites double jeopardy in effort to dismiss the case
On Sept. 21, Clancy's defense team filed a separate motion arguing the
charges against her should be dismissed altogether because the court
failed to investigate the message from the jury that one juror wasn't following the judge's instructions on reasonable doubt.

Jurors, including the foreperson, have said the holdout juror expressed
doubt about Clancy's guilt but refused to find her not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility. The juror, who has since publicly identified
himself as Michael P. Desronvil, later disputed that characterization,
saying in a statement released by his attorney that he "didn't have any doubts" and believed that Clancy "knew exactly what she was doing and planned."

As deliberations stalled, Reddington repeatedly pressed Sullivan to
remove the holdout juror. Sullivan declined, saying that it wasn't
appropriate for him to "agree with one juror or 11."

In order to declare a mistrial, there must be no other viable courses of action, but Clancy's attorneys argued the court did have another option: questioning and potentially removing the holdout. "Accordingly, any
successive trial would constitute a violation of Ms. Clancy's Double
Jeopardy rights," the motion said.

The filing does not specifically ask the court to consider the motion at
the Sept. 29 hearing, so it is unclear when the judge may seek a
response from prosecutors or issue a ruling. Rossman said if the judge
rejects the defense's argument, Clancy's team has the right to appeal,
which could push back a potential retrial date.

Clancy's attorney seeks records related to holdout juror
In a motion filed Sept. 18, Reddington requested that the holdout juror
turn his phone over to a neutral examiner designated by the court as
well as call and text message records from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on the deliberation days, according to a copy of the court filing. Juror #10,
Nick Dargie, told ABC News following the mistrial that at times, the
holdout wouldn't engage during deliberation and would "be scrolling on
his phone while people were talking to him."

Reddington also requested the juror's confidential questionnaire and
asked that prosecutors describe what background checks they ran on the
jurors.

Reddington wants the court to question Desronvil about the truthfulness
of the questionnaire and his answers during voir dire, a "sworn
assurance" from Sept. 3 and the use of a cell phone or receipt of
outside information during deliberations.

"The inquiry will not touch the substance of deliberations. The Court
may also hear from Juror No. 10, limited to what he observed of Juror
Doe's phone use," said the motion, which does not identify the jurors
because Sullivan has impounded their names and questionnaires.

Reddington's filing requests the motion be heard at the hearing on Sept.
29. Desronvil's attorney, Edward Paltzik, called the motion
"disgusting" in a statement released on social media.

"Reddington's motion is actually a full-frontal attack on the U.S. Constitution," Paltzik wrote. "Because if the new normal is that jurors
are going to face brutal reprisals for disagreeing with a defense
attorney, you can kiss the Sixth Amendment goodbye."

Unless there's reason to believe Desronvil was using his phone to get information about the case during deliberations, Rossman said it's
highly unlikely the judge will allow the probe into his phone records.

"There's nothing there," Rossman said. "You can't attack a verdict or a mistrial on the grounds that there was a juror who was looking at the
Red Sox score on his phone, or whatever he was doing."

The holdout juror has been at the center of intense speculation and
faced criticism from his fellow jurors and Clancy's supporters. Paltzik
has slammed those who have criticized Desronvil.

"Rest assured that the evil people who have so viciously attacked this American Hero and Champion of Justice will be held accountable to the
maximum extent of the law and beyond," Paltzik said on social media.

Rossman said a juror receiving such negative attention and being forced
to reveal private information in this way could hurt other defendants
and discourage prospective jurors moving forward.

"I'm afraid it might make people more reluctant to be on a jury,
especially people who think that their views might be in the minority," Rossman said.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/crime/2026/09/28/lindsay-clancy- court-updates/91921345007/
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2