“This entire case is based on speculation,” Reddington said during the hearing.
He pressed the judge to examine whether the Commonwealth had established its case beyond a reasonable doubt, repeatedly questioning the evidence linking his client to the deaths.
“Where is the evidence that she did this?” Reddington asked.
The attorney went even further, declaring there was “no evidence this woman killed those children.”
That argument represents a significant departure from the defense strategy presented during Clancy’s original five-week murder trial.
Defense Shifts Its Argument After Jury Deadlock
During the trial, Clancy’s attorneys did not dispute that she caused the deaths of her children. Instead, they focused on whether she could be held criminally responsible for her actions.
The defense maintained that Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis, a severe psychiatric condition, and argued that she heard a commanding male voice directing her behavior.
According to that defense, Clancy’s mental state prevented her from legally understanding the nature and consequences of what she was doing.
Prosecutors seized on the apparent change in strategy during Tuesday’s hearing.
Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham challenged Reddington’s new position, calling the argument “laughable.” She pointed to evidence presented during the original proceedings, as well as stipulations made by the defense before the jury began deliberating.
The disagreement places the court in the middle of a consequential legal dispute over how the defense’s earlier position should affect its current demand for acquittal.
Clancy, 36, has pleaded not guilty to the murder charges involving her children: Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and eight-month-old Callan.
Prosecutors allege that Clancy strangled the children using exercise bands inside the family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts, home.
They contend she arranged for her husband, Patrick Clancy, to leave the residence on errands, giving her an opportunity to be alone with the children.
Following the deaths, Clancy jumped from a second-story window. The resulting injuries left her paralyzed from the waist down.
Those allegations remain at the heart of the unresolved criminal case.
Defense Questions the Physical Evidence
Reddington also challenged aspects of the physical evidence investigators collected at the home.
Among his arguments was a question about the absence of blood smears in areas where prosecutors allege Clancy moved before jumping from the window.
The defense attorney also questioned how much Clancy actually remembered about the events inside the home.
Reddington argued that she learned certain details after the incident rather than independently recalling what had happened.
Prosecutors disputed the defense’s characterization of the evidence.
They pointed to statements Clancy allegedly made while hospitalized, including discussions about hearing a commanding voice. Prosecutors argue those statements connect her to the events that led to the children’s deaths.
Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague maintained that the prosecution had satisfied its legal obligations.
“The Commonwealth met its burden” Sprague said, arguing that the evidence established Clancy committed the charged acts.
Sprague also pushed back against the defense’s reliance on mental illness, emphasizing that a psychiatric condition does not automatically eliminate criminal responsibility.
She further argued that Clancy did not exhibit outward signs of psychosis.
The prosecution has also advanced an “altruistic filicide” theory, contending that Clancy intended to take her own life and did not want her children to suffer.
Judge Sullivan did not immediately resolve the dispute. He took the defense’s request for a required finding of not guilty under advisement, leaving the case’s next steps uncertain.
Prosecutors Have Not Decided Whether to Retry Clancy
The September mistrial followed an extraordinarily difficult deliberation process.
The original jury deliberated for more than seven days before becoming deadlocked 11-1, according to jurors who later discussed the proceedings.
Eleven jurors reportedly favored finding Clancy not criminally responsible, while Michael Desronvil, the lone holdout, supported a conviction.
Desronvil subsequently defended his position through counsel, saying he had no doubts about his conclusions and rejecting suggestions that he ignored the judge’s instructions concerning reasonable doubt.
In a Fox News video, Desronvil urged the public to remember the three children at the center of the case, referring to them as “the three angels.”
Meanwhile, Clancy’s defense has separately asked Sullivan to investigate Desronvil’s jury questionnaire, his responses during court proceedings, and allegations that he used his cellphone during deliberations.
One juror previously alleged that Desronvil scrolled through his phone while the jury was deliberating, conduct prohibited under Massachusetts jury rules.
Desronvil’s new attorney, Heather O’Connor, has defended his conduct, arguing that he took his responsibilities seriously and criticizing efforts to single him out for scrutiny.
The allegations have added another layer of complexity to an already contentious legal battle.
Double Jeopardy Dispute Looms Over Any Second Trial
Clancy’s attorneys are also challenging the legal basis for the mistrial itself.
The defense argues that Sullivan should have investigated the holdout juror more thoroughly before declaring the jury unable to reach a verdict.
Reddington’s team contends that there was no “manifest necessity” to terminate the original trial, raising the possibility that a second prosecution could violate Clancy’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
Prosecutors oppose that position, maintaining that the jury’s inability to reach a unanimous verdict provided sufficient grounds for the mistrial.
They argue that the case can legally proceed to another trial.
The prosecution has also requested a gag order restricting Reddington’s public comments ahead of any potential retrial. Prosecutors contend that limits are necessary to protect the fairness of future proceedings and prevent another “carnival atmosphere” surrounding the widely publicized case.
Sullivan postponed arguments concerning the juror investigation, impounded records, and the double-jeopardy challenge until November 2.
No retrial date has been established, and Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said Tuesday that prosecutors have not yet decided whether to pursue another trial.
“We’re going to do what we can for the children,” Cruz told reporters outside the courthouse.
“It’s about those children and making sure they get justice,” Cruz said, describing the ongoing review.
Clancy remains at a state psychiatric hospital as the murder charges and multiple post-mistrial motions remain unresolved.
Approximately 40 supporters, many dressed in pink, gathered outside Plymouth Superior Court ahead of Tuesday’s hearing.
If convicted of first-degree murder, Clancy could face life imprisonment. An acquittal based on legal insanity, however, could result in continued psychiatric confinement.
For now, the case remains in limbo.
Judge Sullivan has scheduled the next status hearing for November 2, when attorneys are expected to address the outstanding motions and discuss whether a new trial should be scheduled.
