A Massachusetts judge denied Lindsay Clancy’s fourth bid to dismiss three first-degree murder charges after a mistrial, ruling prosecutors offered enough evidence for a rational jury to convict.

Judge William Sullivan rejected the motion Thursday after defense attorney Kevin Reddington argued it in court Tuesday. The ruling keeps the 36-year-old mother facing trial in the deaths of her three young children in Duxbury, Massachusetts.

NY Post reported that Reddington sought a required finding of not guilty on all three first-degree murder counts once the case ended in a mistrial. Sullivan found the state had already put physical and circumstantial proof before the jury that could support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Prosecutors say Clancy strangled Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, with exercise bands in the family’s basement on Jan. 24, 2023. They argued at the six-week trial that she planned the killings coldly. The defense claimed extreme postpartum psychosis and a voice that ordered her to kill the children and herself.

Sullivan’s order leaves the charges intact and sets Clancy’s next court date for Nov. 2. A new trial date has not been set.

Evidence met the legal threshold, judge rules

Reddington, 75, pressed the court on the strength of the proof. “Where is the evidence that she did this?” he asked. “This entire case is based on speculation.”

Sullivan answered directly in his ruling. “There was evidence introduced, both physical and circumstantial, that would permit a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the charge of murder,” the judge wrote.

Fox News reported that Sullivan also rejected the idea that mental illness alone bars a finding of criminal responsibility. “Mental illness alone does not preclude a finding of criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt,” he wrote.

That language matters. The defense built its case on postpartum psychosis. The judge made plain that a psychiatric claim does not automatically erase the elements of murder when physical and circumstantial evidence are in the record.

This was Reddington’s fourth attempt to have the charges thrown out. Sullivan denied the earlier three as well. The pattern shows a defense that keeps testing the same door and a court that keeps finding the state’s case sufficient to proceed.

Mistrial left eleven jurors on one side

The case reached this point after a mistrial on Sept. 4. A jury of nine women and three men deliberated seven days and told the court three times they could not reach a unanimous verdict.

After the mistrial, several jurors spoke publicly. Eleven favored a finding that Clancy was not criminally responsible. One holdout wanted a conviction. That single vote blocked any verdict and forced the case back to square one.

The deadlock did not erase the evidence already presented. It simply meant twelve people could not agree on the legal result. Sullivan’s latest order treats that record as strong enough for another jury to consider.

Clancy appeared in Plymouth, Massachusetts, court with Reddington on Sept. 29. She remains due back Nov. 2, when the court is expected to address next steps, including double-jeopardy issues raised after the hung jury.

Readers following the case will recall the mistrial that ended the first trial after the deadlock and a failed defense appeal to the state’s high court. The current motion was the next defense move after that setback.

Prosecutors still have not set a new trial date

Prosecutors have not announced how they plan to move forward. No new trial date has been calendared. The November hearing will give both sides a chance to frame the path ahead.

Reddington did not immediately return a request for comment Thursday afternoon after the denial. The defense has already signaled it will keep fighting on multiple fronts.

One earlier defense effort sought a mistrial during the first trial itself. A separate judicial ruling denied that mistrial bid after a prosecution witness referenced Catholic faith. The pattern is consistent: motions filed, arguments made, and the court declining to end the case short of a verdict.

The underlying facts of the children’s deaths remain the core of the prosecution theory. Trial evidence included Clancy’s actions and demeanor around the time of the killings. Prosecutors used those details to argue planning rather than pure loss of control.

Background on that timeline includes reporting that Clancy texted her husband about takeout an hour before the children were killed. Those communications formed part of the state’s portrait of her conduct that day.

Accountability still rests with a future jury

Sullivan’s order does not decide guilt or innocence. It decides only that the case survives another defense effort to end it without a full verdict. The three first-degree murder charges stay in place.

For families and communities that watched three small children die in their own home, the ruling keeps the legal process alive. A mistrial is not an acquittal. A psychiatric defense is not a free pass when a judge finds physical and circumstantial evidence already in the record.

Defense strategy after the hung jury has included adding new counsel for a double-jeopardy challenge. Coverage of that move noted that Clancy’s team brought on a Karen Read attorney to press post-mistrial issues. The November date will test how far those arguments go.

Earlier reporting on the same judicial track also tracked Sullivan’s denial of the acquittal bid as the latest in a series of courtroom losses for the defense. Each denial has left the murder counts standing.

The law requires more than a claim of illness. It requires a jury to weigh evidence of what happened in that basement and whether Clancy could still form the intent the murder statute demands. Sullivan held that the trial record already contains enough for that weighing to occur.

Three children are gone. The charges remain. The next jury will have to do the work the first one could not finish.

When the evidence of three small bodies is already before the court, soft exits through repeated motions are not justice, they are delay. A full verdict is still the only honest end.