If you or someone you know is having thoughts of suicide, please contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255).
The Plymouth County district attorney prosecuting Lindsay Clancy is known for rarely cutting deals, but a veteran defense attorney who has worked alongside him says her case may be the “exception.”
Clancy, 36, faced three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her children â Cora, Dawson and Callan, all under age 6 â who were found strangled at the family’s home in January 2023.
LINDSAY CLANCY MISTRIAL DECLARED AFTER JURY DEADLOCKS IN KILLINGS OF HER THREE CHILDREN
The future of Clancy’s murder case is unclear after Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on Friday, Sept. 4, after jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict, ending in an alleged 11-1 divide.
Boston-based criminal defense attorney Peter Elikann, who has experience working against the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office, told Fox News Digital that the office is known for its reluctance to negotiate.
“Normally, the reputation of the Plymouth County DA’s office is that they don’t like to do deals as much as other district attorney’s offices do, that they will push a case to trial even if it’s not their strongest case,” Elikann said. “This very well could be an exception.”
Elikann said it has become “conventional wisdom” that it’s “unlikely that you’ll ever get 12 jurors to agree that she committed first-degree murder.”
“It would make sense that as a win-win situation that the DA’s office puts their head together with the defense counsel and they try to work out some sort of compromise that they can both live with,” he added.
Elikann said Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz likely realizes it’s going to be an uphill battle to secure a murder conviction at a potential retrial.
FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON X
“Different juries can differ. But that might be an indication that it’s going to be really rough to get 12 people to find her guilty of first-degree murder. Therefore, it would be something that they would mull over. Why have another trial if the likelihood of getting a conviction would be considered so minimal by a lot of people?” Elikann said.
Nick Dargie, one of the jurors, told ABC News the holdout juror refused to explain how witness testimony helped prove his stance.
“There was several times I would ask him to show us evidence or, you know, describe a witness testimony that helped to prove what he was saying, and … he couldn’t,” Dargie said. “There wasn’t a single piece of evidence or witness testimony that he used to prove why he was thinking the way he was, which is why we ultimately sent in tha
