Lindsay Clancy hires Karen Read attorney for high-stakes double jeopardy fight after murder mistrial
Lindsay Clancy, a 31‑year‑old from Duxbury, Massachusetts, was convicted in 2023 of murdering her three young children and attempted suicide. Her trial ended in a mistrial on September 4, and she is now fighting to have the case dismissed before it can return to court on September 29. A new attorney, veteran Boston lawyer Martin Weinberg—who previously fought for Karen Read in a similar situation—has joined Clancy’s defense team and plans to file a motion on double‑jeopardy grounds.
The case in brief
In January 2023, Clancy’s family home in Duxbury was the scene of a horrific tragedy. She allegedly strangled her 5‑year‑old daughter Cora, 3‑year‑old son Dawson, and 8‑month‑old son Callan using exercise bands. After killing the children, she allegedly leapt from a second‑story window in an apparent suicide attempt, sustaining paralysis. Clancy remains in custody at Tewksbury Hospital.
Her prosecution argued that she had planned the killings, sending her husband Patrick out of the house before striking the children. The defense, however, contends that Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was heavily medicated, and therefore not criminally responsible at the time of the deaths.
The mistrial
The trial, held in Plymouth Superior Court, was overseen by Judge William Sullivan. After seven days of deliberation, the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. An 11‑to‑1 split emerged: eleven jurors favored finding Clancy not criminally responsible, while one juror voted to convict. Judge Sullivan declared a mistrial on September 4, citing the lack of unanimity.
The judge also issued an order that the identities of the twelve jurors and six alternates who served in the trial would remain confidential indefinitely. Sullivan wrote, “Based on the circumstances of this trial and the fact that the case continues to receive daily, divisive attention in Massachusetts and beyond, the Court concludes that there is a real and present ‘risk of personal harm to the jurors and to the integrity of their service.’” The order extended protection for the names of a larger jury pool for an additional ten days.
New counsel and strategy
Kevin Reddington, Clancy’s longtime defense lawyer, announced immediately after the mistrial that he would oppose any retrial. The case is set to return to court on September 29, but Clancy has now added Martin Weinberg to her legal team. Weinberg entered a limited appearance on Tuesday to file a motion seeking dismissal of the case on double‑jeopardy grounds, according to a filing obtained by Fox News Digital.
“Weinberg will represent Clancy in connection with the dismissal motion and related matters,” the filing states. While the filing does not specify when the motion will be submitted, the defense is expected to argue that the circumstances surrounding the mistrial bar prosecutors from retrying Clancy. In double‑jeopardy claims, a defendant can assert that a mistrial arising from a deadlocked jury may preclude a subsequent trial under certain conditions.
Weinberg’s involvement is notable because he previously fought for Karen Read, whose 2024 trial ended in a mistrial and was subsequently retried in 2025. Read was acquitted of second‑degree murder, manslaughter, and leaving the scene of a deadly crash, but was convicted of a misdemeanor operating under the influence. Weinberg had argued that Read could not face those charges again, a request that was rejected by a judge who found the jury had not formally returned not‑guilty verdicts.
Current status
Clancy remains in Tewksbury Hospital. Prosecutors have not yet publicly announced whether they intend to retry her. The case is scheduled to return to court on September 29, and the outcome of Weinberg’s motion could determine whether Clancy faces another trial.
Context and background
Clancy’s case has attracted nationwide attention, partly because of the alleged postpartum psychosis defense. Dr. Phil, a psychiatrist, has described the mistrial as “a teachable moment on postpartum psychosis and a failure of the system.” The case also underscores the challenges of prosecuting crimes where mental illness is claimed, and the delicate balance between public safety, juror protection, and defendants’ rights.
Judge Sullivan’s decision to keep jurors’ identities confidential is intended to protect them from potential harm and to preserve the integrity of the judicial process amid intense media scrutiny.
Looking ahead
If Weinberg’s dismissal motion succeeds, Clancy could see her case dismissed, ending the criminal proceedings entirely. If the motion fails, Clancy will likely face a retrial that will reopen the questions of her mental state at the time of the killings and the prosecution’s evidence of premeditation.
The case remains a stark reminder of the complexities inherent in cases involving mental illness, family tragedy, and the legal principles of double jeopardy and jury deliberation.
