Story perspectives

Judge to rule on double-jeopardy after Clancy mistrial

By Drooid · Sep 29, 2026, 3:05 AM UTC · How we work

Summary

Story summary

Lindsay Clancy returns to Plymouth Court for a hearing on Sept. 29 after a Sept. 4 mistrial.
Judge William Sullivan will consider motions to dismiss on double-jeopardy and to order a not-guilty finding.
The 12-person jury was deadlocked 11-1 toward a not-responsible verdict.
Defense lawyer Kevin Reddington seeks court review of holdout juror Michael Desronvil’s questionnaire and phone use.
If Sullivan grants double-jeopardy relief, the state cannot retry the murder charges against Lindsay Clancy.

History

Historical Context

In 1824, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall decided United States v. Perez, holding that a hung jury does not trigger the Fifth Amendment’s double-jeopardy bar, so a second trial is permissible. That precedent guides today’s double-jeopardy dispute as Judge William Sullivan reviews Lindsay Clancy’s claim for relief after an 11-1 deadlocked jury.

1 of 2

Story summary

Lindsay Clancy returns to Plymouth Court for a hearing on Sept. 29 after a Sept. 4 mistrial.
Judge William Sullivan will consider motions to dismiss on double-jeopardy and to order a not-guilty finding.
The 12-person jury was deadlocked 11-1 toward a not-responsible verdict.
Defense lawyer Kevin Reddington seeks court review of holdout juror Michael Desronvil’s questionnaire and phone use.
If Sullivan grants double-jeopardy relief, the state cannot retry the murder charges against Lindsay Clancy.

1 / 2