Lindsay Clancy Is on '24/7, One-on-One Suicide Watch', Lawyer Says After Mistrial

Lindsay Clancy remains on '24/7, one-on-one suicide watch' following the mistrial in her Massachusetts case over the deaths of her three young children, her lawyer, Kevin Reddington, has said.

Defence attorney Reddington disclosed during a recent interview with NBC News that the 36-year-old mother struggles constantly with her mental health and frequently expresses deep remorse over the tragic deaths of her three young children.

Reddington said Clancy is suicidal and that he worries about her 'every day'. 'She's strong,' he said. 'She has incredible family support. But she is suicidal. I mean, she's on 24/7, one-on-one suicide watch. I worry about her every day.'

Clancy was tried over the deaths of her children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, at the family's Duxbury, Massachusetts, home on 24 January 2023.

Clancy does not deny strangling the children, while her defence has argued that she was not criminally responsible because she was experiencing postpartum psychosis.

The trial ended in a mistrial on 4 September after the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict following about 38 hours of deliberations.

Lindsay Clancy Remains on Suicide Watch

As legal strategists prepare for pivotal post-trial motions scheduled for later this month, the harrowing case continues to ignite fierce national debate surrounding maternal mental healthcare, legal culpability, and the profound complexities of psychiatric defences within the American judicial system.

The lawyer also said Clancy frequently expresses regret over the deaths of her children and repeats the phrase, 'I want my babies.'

Clancy was left paralysed from the waist down after jumping from a second-storey window in an apparent suicide attempt following the children's deaths. She remains in a state psychiatric facility while the legal case continues.

Reddington's statements about Clancy's current mental state have not been independently confirmed by the hospital.

How the Lindsay Clancy Mistrial Unfolded

Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial at Plymouth Superior Court on 4 September after jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict on whether Clancy was criminally responsible for the deaths.

Three jurors later said the panel was divided 11–1, with 11 jurors favouring a finding that Clancy was not criminally responsible. The 11–1 division was not a verdict because the jury did not reach the unanimous decision required to resolve the case.

The unnamed holdout juror became a focus of the final days of deliberations. The jury foreperson said the juror had acknowledged having reasonable doubt but did not agree to a finding that Clancy was not criminally responsible.

Reddington asked Judge Sullivan to remove the juror, arguing that he was not properly applying the judge's instructions on reasonable doubt. Sullivan declined to do so.

Reporting on the deliberations also indicates that the judge did not find that the juror had demonstrated an unwillingness to follow the law.

Reddington said he would defend the juror's right to hold a different opinion but maintained that jurors must follow the court's instructions.

'He's got every right to do that, and I would defend that right, but not to refuse to apply the law,' he said. 'This is where you draw the line.'

The juror's conduct has been criticised by other jurors and by the defence, but there has been no judicial finding that the juror violated the law.

What Happens Next

The mistrial leaves the case unresolved. Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not announced whether prosecutors will seek a retrial.

Reddington has instead filed a motion asking Judge Sullivan to acquit Clancy, arguing that the prosecution's evidence was legally insufficient to establish criminal responsibility. He is also preparing to argue that a retrial would violate double-jeopardy protections.

The motion is expected to be considered at a hearing on 29 September. Reddington has also said he would consider plea negotiations but would not accept an agreement that resulted in Clancy spending even one day in prison.

Postpartum Psychosis Was Central to the Defence

The central legal question at trial was whether Clancy was criminally responsible for the deaths. Clancy pleaded not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. Her defence argued that she was experiencing postpartum psychosis and that the condition, together with medication she had been prescribed, affected her actions.

'That was not the Lindsay that is now living amongst us,' Reddington said. 'The person that committed this atrocious act was a result of postpartum psychosis combined with the medications that she was provided.'

The defence also argued that Clancy experienced auditory hallucinations and that those symptoms affected her ability to understand or control her actions.

Prosecutors presented a different account, arguing that Clancy was criminally responsible for the children's deaths. Their case challenged the defence's account of psychosis and focused on evidence about Clancy's behaviour before and after the killings.

The jury did not resolve the competing arguments because of the mistrial.

Postpartum psychosis is a rare and serious psychiatric condition that can involve symptoms including hallucinations and delusions. The psychiatric evidence in Clancy's case concerned her particular mental state and its relevance to the legal question of criminal responsibility.

Clancy Rejects Online Claims About Patrick Clancy

Reddington also said Clancy rejects online theories alleging that her former husband, Patrick Clancy, was involved in the children's deaths.

'She knows, and it's readily apparent that Patrick has been set upon and his life has been turned upside down into a nightmare that he doesn't deserve. Period. Full stop,' Reddington said.

Patrick Clancy's lawyers have separately pushed back against the online allegations, calling them false and saying they would pursue appropriate legal measures. They also said they had notified law enforcement.

Reddington Asks Trump To Consider a Pardon

Reddington has also asked President Donald Trump to consider pardoning Clancy. The request came despite Clancy's prosecution under Massachusetts state law. Presidential pardon authority ordinarily applies to federal offences.

Reddington said he raised the request because Trump had commented publicly on the case and because he hoped the president might use his position to encourage Massachusetts authorities to reconsider the prosecution.

For now, however, Clancy's case remains unresolved. The mistrial did not determine whether Clancy was criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children.

Prosecutors have not announced whether they will seek another trial, while Reddington is pursuing a motion that could end the case without a retrial.