Clancy attorney argues there’s no evidence she killed her kids, no new trial date set in first hearing after mistrial

During the hearing, Defense attorney Kevin Reddington argued his Rule 25 motion, claiming that the state had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy killed her children. Under Rule 25 in the state’s Rules of Criminal Procedure, a motion can be filed for a judge to enter a finding of not guilty if the evidence is not enough to support a conviction.

Reddington claimed that “there was no investigation,” and that “This entire case is based on speculation. Where is the admission? Where did she say that she did this?”

He raised questions about the accuracy of her statements in the hospital after her suicide attempt. “What’s most chilling is when she comes out of this obvious coma that she’s in, that when she comes out of it … She was told what happened. She had no memory of what happened.”

"There is, there was, and there cannot be evidence under the Lattimore standard that this woman killed those children.”

The prosecution pushed back on the claims, saying there was sufficient evidence Clancy had killed her three children. “There is, there was, and there cannot be evidence under the Lattimore standard that this woman killed those children,” Plymouth County Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham said, citing DNA evidence found on the exercise bands used to kill the children, video surveillance, and testimony.

Reddington said that experts who testified at the trial, including those called by the prosecution, had indicated that Clancy was suffering from a mental disease or defect, a finding necessary for a verdict of not criminally responsible.

"Why would this woman, who the evidence shows clearly and unequivocally was a nurse, a mother, a friend, did nothing wrong in her life – why would she kill those three children? All five of the doctors – six of the doctors – indicated that she was suffering from a mental disease or defect.”

Judge William Sullivan said he would take the issue under advisement and would issue a ruling at a separate date.

Clancy’s defense also argued that it should have access to jury notes. Arguing for the defense was attorney Martin Weinberg, who said the party is seeking “two categories of documents to be provided to us so that we can rely on them publicly in support of the motion for double jeopardy.” Those two categories are: the jury notes and the transcripts of sidebar discussions.

Prosecutors argued that releasing the jury notes that were sent to the court would have a “chilling effect.” Sullivan said he would take the matter under advisement and rule at a later date.

Another hearing has been set for November 2, where additional motions will be argued. Sullivan told the parties that they need to be prepared to pick a retrial date at that point. The parties had both argued that a date should not yet be set over motions that need to be decided and any appellate action that may be taken on those motions, waiting instead for the resolution of those matters before a hearing is set.

Reddington had said that would not be able to do a trial before June of 2027. Sullivan said regarding the matter, “My goal is to get this thing tried as soon as possible. I don’t want this thing to get kicked down the road, get punted.”