The future of Lindsay Clancy's murder prosecution is uncertain after a mistrial, and a veteran defense attorney says the Plymouth County district attorney's well-known reluctance to negotiate plea deals could make her case an exception.
Clancy, 36, faced three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her three children — Cora, Dawson and Callan, all under age 6 — who were found strangled at the family's home in January 2023. Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on Friday, Sept. 4, after jurors could not reach a unanimous verdict, ending in an alleged 11-1 divide.
Boston-based criminal defense attorney Peter Elikann, who has experience working against the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office, told Fox News Digital that the office is known for its reluctance to negotiate. «Normally, the reputation of the Plymouth County DA's office is that they don't like to do deals as much as other district attorney's offices do, that they will push a case to trial even if it's not their strongest case,» Elikann said. «This very well could be an exception.»
Elikann said it has become «conventional wisdom» that it is «unlikely that you'll ever get 12 jurors to agree that she committed first-degree murder.» He added that a compromise could serve both sides. «It would make sense that as a win-win situation that the DA's office puts their head together with the defense counsel and they try to work out some sort of compromise that they can both live with,» he said.
Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not decided whether to retry Clancy. After the mistrial, he said: «There will be no decisions made today regarding that.» He added that he would meet with his team and address the case «at the appropriate time and in the context of an official court proceeding.»
Elikann said Cruz likely realizes it will be an uphill battle to secure a murder conviction at a potential retrial. «Different juries can differ. But that might be an indication that it's going to be really rough to get 12 people to find her guilty of first-degree murder. Therefore, it would be something that they would mull over. Why have another trial if the likelihood of getting a conviction would be considered so minimal by a lot of people?» he said.
Nick Dargie, one of the jurors, told ABC News the holdout juror refused to explain how witness testimony helped prove his stance. «There was several times I would ask him to show us evidence or, you know, describe a witness testimony that helped to prove what he was saying, and... he couldn't,» Dargie said. «There wasn't a single piece of evidence or witness testimony that he used to prove why he was thinking the way he was, which is why we ultimately sent in that note.»
Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, said he hopes the two sides can «work something out» when asked about a possible plea agreement on Tuesday during a «Good Morning America» interview. Reddington filed a motion on Wednesday asking Sullivan to enter a finding of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility on each charge. He wants the motion heard at a hearing on Sept. 29.
«A hung jury is not a verdict; jeopardy does not terminate on a hung jury, and a mistrial ordinarily permits retrial,» Reddington conceded in the filing. He argued that 11 of the 12 jurors «applied the reasonable doubt standard,» concluding that prosecutors had not proven Clancy was criminally responsible. The lone holdout on the jury, according to the motion and other jurors, allegedly ignored doubts he had and wanted a guilty verdict.
Reddington said he is willing to listen to Cruz. «I've known Tim for 30 years. He's a very hard charging prosecutor,» Reddington said. «I hope, however, after sitting through this trial and seeing the evidence that was presented from the government as well as from the defense, that he would revisit that issue and hopefully would be able to work something out that would be acceptable to both sides.»
Retired Massachusetts Superior Judge Jack Lu told Fox News Digital that while he thinks a plea deal is a «good idea» and would be in the public's «interest,» he does not think prosecutors would agree. «I predict that the prosecutor's office will approach this the same way, at least as the charges are concerned, as they did for trial number one, seeking a conviction of first-degree murder. There is some possibility that they'll reduce the charges, and that would, that could happen, but I wouldn't be predicting that,» Lu said. «I think it's the honest philosophical point of view of the prosecutor in this case that this individual should be convicted of first-degree murder,» he added.
Clancy is due back in court on Sept. 29 for a status hearing, where more information about the future of her case may be revealed.