How Lindsay Clancy could be declared not guilty and go free despite hung jury as next court date revealed

Lindsay Clancy's attorney believes she could walk free despite her case being declared a mistrial.

Clancy has been on trial after being charged with three counts of first-degree murder following the deaths of her three young children in the basement of their family home in Massachusetts in 2023.

While she does not dispute killing her three young children, Clancy's lawyers say she was dealing with postpartum psychosis at the time, so could not distinguish right from wrong.

The prosecution, on the other hand, argues Clancy was aware of right from wrong and that the killings were an intentional act.

After a mistrial was declared, with the jury unable to reach a verdict, an update on the case will be provided by authorities on September 29.

Kevin Reddington, Clancy's attorney, told Judge William Sullivan that he plans to invoke Rule 25(b)(2), which could allow the judge to acquit Clancy despite the hung jury.

Lindsay Clancy's case will be reviewed later this month (Jonathan Wiggs/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

Marian Braccia, a former assistant district attorney in Philadelphia, told People: "A rule 25 motion is essentially a ‘sufficiency of the evidence’ mechanism. It allows the trial judge to enter a finding of not guilty if the judge concludes that the Commonwealth’s evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the conviction.

"In Massachusetts, the Rule 25 specifically contemplates a judge deciding a motion like this after a jury has been discharged without returning a verdict.

"So Massachusetts law specifically allows a judge to consider the sufficiency of evidence if the jury hasn’t been able to return a verdict and a mistrial has been granted because of a deadlock — which is exactly what happened in this case — and the judge declared a mistrial.”

Braccia went on to tell People that if Reddington was able to convince the judge, she would simply be declared not guilty.

Kevin Reddington will hope to persuade the judge (CJ Gunther/Getty Images)

He added: "If Judge Sullivan says, ‘I agree with the defense, the Commonwealth was deficient. They did not present sufficient evidence that any rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that there was criminal responsibility here’ — then the result would be an acquittal.

"There would be an entry of a not guilty verdict. It would not be another mistrial, and that is enormously consequential, because an acquittal implicates double jeopardy.

"If she’s acquitted, that’s the end of this prosecution. If she’s acquitted, the Constitution says that she is protected from ever being prosecuted again for causing the death of her three children."

Braccia also spoke to People about what the prosecution may be thinking at this time.

“I think the Commonwealth has to be thinking right now about a few things. Whether it legally can retry the case, certainly — but whether it should retry the case in the same way, on the same charges, now that they’ve learned that 11 of the 12 jurors were reportedly favoring acquittal,” the legal expert added.

"Now, of course, the prosecutor’s mission is always to seek justice, and justice can mean a lot of different things. But they also have to be considering: Do we want to re-traumatize two grandmothers who lost three grandbabies?

"The expenses and the experts and the money spent on this seven-week jury endeavor, is that something the taxpayers want?”