Prosecutors have opposed Lindsay Clancy’s request for a finding of not guilty following her retrial, arguing that the evidence presented in court was sufficient for the case to proceed.
Defence lawyer Kevin Reddington filed the motion after the retrial. In its response, the Commonwealth said the court should assess only the evidence heard at trial, rather than claims about jury deliberations or possible consequences for Clancy if she were found not criminally responsible.
“Defendant has cited no authority that could permit the court to consider such information,” the prosecution filing said.
The response came as prosecutors also sought an order restricting lawyers from making statements to the media that could substantially prejudice the criminal proceedings.
The proposed gag order follows regular media updates from Mr Reddington, including comments about witnesses, descriptions of Clancy in a positive light and remarks about jurors involved in deliberations.
Prosecutors said the defence lawyer had referred to a holdout juror as “he” during a news conference, making it possible to identify the juror as one of three men on the panel. WBZ-TV and Boston Globe Media Partners have opposed the application.
What jurors said after the Lindsay Clancy retrial
The names of jurors were impounded after the mistrial, although several later spoke publicly.
One woman, who asked to remain anonymous, said there had been “so much doubt” and that this was why she found Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity. Juror Paula Devlin confirmed that the panel had been divided 11 to one in favour of finding Clancy not criminally responsible.
The juror who opposed that conclusion later issued a statement amid scrutiny on social media, saying: “I didn’t have any doubt.”
Mr Reddington has also said he would not agree to Clancy spending any time in jail. He said any plea agreement would be a matter for Plymouth District Attorney Tim Cruz, who could reduce a charge from first-degree murder to second-degree murder.
