A Plymouth Superior Court judge denied Clancy’s motion for a required finding of not guilty on three murder indictments involving the deaths of her children.
A Plymouth Superior Court judge on Thursday denied Lindsay Clancy’s motion for a required finding of not guilty on three murder indictments involving the deaths of her children.
FILE - Lindsay Clancy, center, speaks with her lawyer Kevin Reddington during proceedings in her murder trial, Aug. 20, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (AP Photo/Josh Reynolds, Pool, File)Judge William F. Sullivan ruled that the evidence was sufficient for a rational fact-finder to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy committed the alleged crimes and was criminally responsible.
Clancy’s motion challenged the sufficiency of the evidence in two areas: the identity of the person who committed the killings and her criminal responsibility.
The case involves the deaths of her children, Cora, Dawson and Callan, following an incident at the family’s home on Jan. 24, 2023.
According to the ruling, evidence showed Clancy was alone with the children while her husband, Patrick Clancy, picked up takeout and medication. Surveillance videos placed him at the restaurant and pharmacy at times consistent with his testimony.
When he returned, Patrick Clancy said found his wife injured in the backyard below an open bedroom window. She told him she had tried to kill herself and that the children were in the basement, according to the decision.
He later found all three children in the basement with exercise bands around their necks.
Defendant Lindsay Clancy and attorney Kevin Reddington listen to the commonwealth respond to Reddington's motion for dismissal, Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2026, during a hearing set to determine the next steps after a mistrial was declared on Sept. 4th, in Plymouth, Mass. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)Medical examiners testified that Cora and Dawson died from asphyxia and Callan died from complications of mechanical asphyxia.
Sullivan found that the physical and circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the murder charges.
The judge also addressed conflicting expert testimony about Clancy’s mental health.
Both the defense and prosecution presented expert testimony that Clancy had some form of serious mental illness at the time of the killings.
Sullivan wrote that mental illness alone does not preclude a finding of criminal responsibility.
Three prosecution experts testified that Clancy retained substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct and to conform her conduct to the law. Defense experts disagreed.
Sullivan wrote that assessing the credibility and weight of conflicting expert testimony is the jury’s responsibility.
The ruling denies Clancy’s request for a required finding of not guilty; it does not itself establish a guilty verdict.
