Facebook | Lindsay Clancy

Lindsay Clancy has added a high-profile attorney to her defense team as she attempts to prevent prosecutors from putting her on trial a second time for the deaths of her three children. Boston defense attorney Martin Weinberg, who represented Karen Read during her double-jeopardy battle, has entered a limited appearance in Clancy’s case. Weinberg is expected to pursue dismissal on double-jeopardy grounds and address “related matters” following the mistrial that left Clancy facing an uncertain legal future.

Lindsay Clancy Adds Martin Weinberg To Her Defense Team

Facebook | Lindsay Clancy

A Plymouth Superior Court filing entered Tuesday revealed that Weinberg has joined Clancy’s legal team for the limited purpose of preparing and litigating a forthcoming motion to dismiss. The filing does not mean Clancy’s charges have been dismissed or that the court has accepted her double-jeopardy argument. Instead, Weinberg is expected to ask the judge to block prosecutors from trying Clancy again after her first trial ended without a unanimous verdict.

Clancy’s longtime attorney, Kevin Reddington, reportedly brought Weinberg into the case because of his experience handling complicated constitutional appeals. CT Insider reported that Weinberg would handle the double-jeopardy motion and any appeals connected to it.

Weinberg has represented several high-profile clients during his legal career, including Jeffrey Epstein. More recently, he became part of Read’s defense team following the mistrial in her case.

Why The Double-Jeopardy Argument Faces A Major Hurdle

Facebook | Lindsay Clancy

The Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause generally protects a person from being prosecuted more than once for the same offense after an acquittal or conviction. However, a mistrial caused by a deadlocked jury usually does not prevent prosecutors from pursuing another trial.

Clancy’s jury did not return an official verdict before Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial. That fact could create a significant obstacle for her defense team. After the proceedings ended, the jury foreperson and other jurors said the panel had been divided 11 to 1, with the majority favoring a finding of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. However, that reported division was not entered as a verdict in court.

Weinberg may attempt to argue that the circumstances of the deliberations, including the position reportedly reached by 11 jurors, provide grounds to prevent a retrial. The exact legal basis of the forthcoming motion will not be clear until it is filed.

• Lindsay Clancy’s former coworker shared an emotional detail from the delivery room following the mistrial.
• A juror in Lindsay Clancy’s trial explained why “there was definitely anger” after the panel reached a deadlock.
• Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer made an explosive claim about her medical providers following the mistrial.
• A Lindsay Clancy juror opened up about “horrifying” evidence that the public never heard during the trial.
• A juror in Lindsay Clancy’s trial revealed what the lone holdout was unable to explain.

Karen Read’s Case Could Offer A Preview Of The Fight

Facebook | Lindsay Clancy

Weinberg previously raised a similar constitutional argument following Read’s first trial over the death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe. Read was accused of striking O’Keefe with her SUV and leaving him outside the Canton, Massachusetts, home of fellow officer Brian Albert in January 2022. She maintained her innocence and alleged that she had been framed.

Her first trial ended in a mistrial after jurors reported that they could not reach a unanimous decision. Several jurors later said the panel had unanimously agreed Read was not guilty of second-degree murder and leaving the scene but remained deadlocked on the manslaughter charge.

Weinberg argued that retrying Read on the two charges the jury had allegedly resolved would violate her protection against double jeopardy.

Massachusetts’ highest court rejected that argument because the jury had not formally returned or recorded verdicts on those charges. Read’s attorneys then asked the United States Supreme Court to intervene, but the court declined to block the retrial.

Read was ultimately acquitted of the major charges during her second trial but convicted of operating under the influence.

Clancy’s First Trial Ended With One Holdout Juror

Facebook | Lindsay Clancy

Clancy remains accused of killing her children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, inside the family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in January 2023. She admitted that she strangled the children with exercise bands but pleaded not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.

Her defense argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and had been affected by the numerous medications she was prescribed before the killings. Prosecutors disputed that defense and argued that Clancy understood her actions and deliberately planned the deaths.

Following approximately five weeks of testimony, the jury deliberated for more than 37 hours but could not reach a unanimous decision. Jurors later said 11 members supported finding Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, while one juror refused to agree. Reddington asked Sullivan to remove the holdout juror before the mistrial was declared, but the judge declined to do so.

A finding of not guilty by reason of insanity would not necessarily have resulted in Clancy’s immediate release. It could have led to her continued confinement in a psychiatric facility under a different legal process.

Clancy’s Attorneys Are Pursuing More Than One Route

Facebook | Lindsay Clancy

The double-jeopardy motion is not the only attempt to prevent a second trial. Reddington has also asked Sullivan to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, arguing that the prosecution failed to present enough evidence to show she understood the wrongfulness of her actions. Reddington urged the judge to resolve the case without forcing Clancy to face another jury.

Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has maintained that the children’s deaths were intentional murders. However, prosecutors have not publicly confirmed whether they will pursue a complete retrial.

The next hearing is scheduled for September 29.

The Lindsay Clancy Taps High-Profile Attorney For Double-Jeopardy Fight first appeared on The Blast