Judge Denies Lindsay Clancy's Not Guilty Verdict Bid As Lawyer Claims 'No Proof' She Killed Her Kids
Judge William Sullivan ruled that prosecutors presented enough evidence for a jury to decide whether Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children.
See more of our coverage in your search results.
Add BollywoodShaadis on GoogleLindsay Clancy’s case returned to Plymouth Superior Court on Thursday, October 1, 2026, after the first trial ended in a hung jury. The case of the 36-year-old Massachusetts mother with postpartum psychosis and a severe mental illness raises ethical questions about whether she should be held criminally liable for the deaths of her children.
Judge William Sullivan has now denied the defense's motion to grant a not guilty verdict to Lindsay Clancy. The former nurse has pleaded herself not criminally responsible by reason of insanity. She is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the January 2023 deaths of her children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and 8-month-old Callan.
Lindsay Clancy's lawyer pointed to the lack of definitive evidence against her
After Clancy's highly publicized trial ended in a hung jury earlier in September 2026, her attorney, Kevin Reddington, filed a post-trial motion during the September 29 hearing. He challenged the prosecution’s evidence, arguing that the case against his client relied too heavily on assumptions.
Reddington argued that there was a "total and complete lack of evidence" proving that she killed her children. He addressed the court by saying:
"I ask the court to look back at the evidence presented and ask yourself, where is the evidence that she did this?"
The veteran lawyer also questioned evidence presented at trial, including blood-spatter evidence and the prosecution’s account of what happened inside the family’s home.
Prosecutors, however, strongly pushed back against the claims, with Plymouth County Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham arguing that the evidence presented at trial was extensive, including DNA evidence connected to the exercise bands prosecutors said were used to strangle the children.
Buckingham also pointed to evidence indicating that Clancy was alone with the children while her husband, Patrick Clancy, was away picking up medication and takeout. Video evidence placed Patrick at those locations around the relevant time, according to the prosecution’s case.
Buckingham also referenced statements Clancy allegedly made to a hospital chaplain about experiencing hallucinations that told her she had to kill her children. Judge William Sullivan ruled that prosecutors presented enough evidence for a reasonable jury to decide Clancy’s fate. He wrote in his filing:
"With respect to the elements of murder and the identity of who committed the alleged crimes, the evidence presented by the Commonwealth in its case in chief … was sufficient to satisfy any rational trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt."
Experts agree that Lindsay Clancy was seriously mentally ill when her kids died, but she never confessed to the murders
From the beginning, the central dispute in Clancy's case has not simply been whether the children died at her hands, but whether she was criminally responsible for their deaths. Both sides of the case presented experts who agreed Clancy suffered from serious mental illness.
But they disagreed about whether she understood what she was doing and whether she was capable of knowing that her actions were wrong. Defense experts testified that Clancy was experiencing postpartum psychosis and had been affected by psychiatric medications around the time of the deaths.
Attorney Kevin Reddington told the court that Clancy never admitted to killing her children and argued that authorities had not conducted a thorough investigation into their deaths. He said they just "immediately assumed that this woman was guilty."
Prosecutors argued that she deliberately killed the children and maintained that she was not psychotic in the way required to establish a lack of criminal responsibility. In response, Judge Sullivan noted:
"Mental illness alone does not preclude a finding of criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt."
Lindsay Clancy’s first trial ended after jurors deliberated for roughly six days without reaching a unanimous verdict. Several jurors later said the panel was split 11-1 in favor of finding Clancy not criminally responsible.
The mistrial left prosecutors with the option of seeking a new trial, but Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not said whether the Commonwealth intends to retry the former nurse. Meanwhile, Lindsay's ex-husband, Patrick Clancy, has remarried and is now expecting his first child with his new wife, Rachel Danis.
What are your thoughts on Judge Sullivan denying Lindsay Clancy's not-guilty verdict bid?
Image courtesy: Plymouth Superior Court in Massachusetts, Court TV
Read Next: Jim Carrey Makes Major Property-Related Move After Secret Marriage To Third Wife Min Ah At L.A.
