Lindsay Clancy Bid to Dismiss Murder Case Denied—Here's What Happens Next
A Massachusetts judge has denied Lindsay Clancy's attempt to have the murder charges against her thrown out, clearing the way for prosecutors to pursue a retrial in the high-profile case involving the deaths of her three children.
In a ruling issued Thursday, Plymouth Superior Court Judge William F. Sullivan rejected the defense's Rule 25 motion for a required finding of not guilty following September's mistrial. Under Massachusetts law, a Rule 25 motion asks a judge to determine whether prosecutors presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to convict.
Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, argued the Commonwealth failed to prove two key elements of its case: that Clancy killed her three children and that she was criminally responsible for her actions at the time.
Read More on U.S.
Sullivan disagreed, finding that prosecutors presented enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy committed the killings and could be held criminally responsible.
“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," Sullivan wrote.
...
The decision does not determine guilt or innocence. Rather, it means the judge found the evidence presented during the first trial was legally sufficient for the case to proceed to a new jury.
The ruling represents a victory for prosecutors, who have maintained that Clancy carefully planned the killings of her children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, on January 24, 2023, then tried to kill herself, while her husband was briefly out of the family's Duxbury home.
Newsweek has contacted Reddington by email and left a message with Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz's office seeking comment.
Why Judge Sullivan Said the Case Can Proceed
According to the decision, prosecutors introduced both physical and circumstantial evidence showing that Clancy was alone with the children during the relevant time period. Her husband, Patrick Clancy, testified that he left the house to pick up takeout food and medication and later returned to find evidence of violence inside the home before discovering his children in the basement.
Medical examiners testified that the children died from asphyxia or complications resulting from mechanical asphyxia. Prosecutors alleged the children were strangled with exercise bands.
The judge also rejected the defense's challenge to the state's evidence regarding criminal responsibility. During the trial, both sides agreed that Clancy suffered from a serious mental illness at the time. The central dispute was whether that illness rendered her legally incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of her conduct or conforming her behavior to the law.
Sullivan noted that three prosecution experts testified that Clancy retained those capacities, even if defense experts reached different conclusions. Resolving those competing opinions, he wrote, is a matter for a jury rather than a judge.
Thursday's decision marks the second time Sullivan has rejected the defense's bid to dismiss the case, finding on both occasions that prosecutors presented sufficient evidence for a jury to consider the charges.
“For the first time, the defendant is arguing that there is no evidence she did this,” Prosecutor Shanan Buckingham told the judge during Tuesday's hearing. “I’d suggest to you the entire record is voluminous as to information supporting the fact that she did this.”
View this post on X
What Happens Next
A hearing is scheduled for November 2, when the parties are expected to address several unresolved issues, including Clancy's motion to block a retrial on double jeopardy grounds and the defense's request for a court inquiry into Michael Desronvil, the holdout juror who wanted to convict Clancy.
Defense attorneys have sought scrutiny of Desronvil's phone records as part of their effort to investigate the circumstances surrounding the mistrial and the conduct of the jury's deliberations.
Paul Mauro, an attorney and Fox News contributor, wrote on X after Sullivan's ruling, "Unsurprising. He should similarly swat down the double jeopardy motion and the request to review the holdout juror's phone."
Prosecutors have not yet said whether they intend to retry Clancy. Their options include pursuing another first-degree murder case, seeking lesser charges such as second-degree murder or manslaughter, or declining to move forward altogether.
If a retrial is ordered, a new jury would once again be asked to decide whether Clancy is guilty of murdering her three children or whether her mental state at the time rendered her not criminally responsible.
Newsweek’s reporters and editors used Martyn, our AI assistant, to produce this story. Learn more about Martyn here.
NO SURRENDER — Ilhan Omar Fires Back at Donald Trump After Federal Agents Search Her Home
Ilhan Omar is refusing to back down after federal agents searched her Washington, D.C., home in a criminal investigation—an extraordinary development that has reignited her long-running confrontation with Donald Trump just weeks before the midterm elections.
The Minnesota Democrat responded with a defiant message: “I will not be silenced.” She accused the Trump administration of using federal law enforcement to target political opponents and described the search as another escalation in what she called a decade-long campaign of intimidation.
The statement immediately raised the political stakes. Omar is not simply disputing the circumstances surrounding the search; she is challenging the administration’s conduct and demanding that the public examine why federal agents took such a consequential step so close to an election.
But the central questions remain unresolved: What exactly are investigators looking for, what evidence supports the inquiry, and will the search trigger a broader confrontation between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration?
‘I Will Not Be Silenced’: Omar’s Defiant Response
On October 12, after news of the search emerged, Omar posted a response on social media that began with a brief reassurance: “I’m ok.”
She then delivered a much sharper political message, accusing the administration of targeting political enemies and weaponizing federal law enforcement.
“For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns,” Omar wrote, describing the search as the latest escalation in what she characterized as political intimidation. She ended with a declaration that quickly became the defining line of her response: “I will not be silenced.”
Her congressional office issued a separate statement calling the search an “outrageous abuse of power” and an “unprecedented escalation” in the use of federal law enforcement against political opponents. The statement said Omar had done nothing wrong and argued that no president should be able to use the federal government to intimidate political adversaries.
Those are Omar’s allegations and her office’s position. The search itself was carried out under a judicially authorized warrant, according to the Justice Department. Whether investigators uncover evidence of wrongdoing—and whether the search was justified by the facts of the case—remains to be established.
What Happened at Omar’s Washington Home?
Federal agents with Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, searched Omar’s Washington residence early Monday, October 12.
The Justice Department confirmed that agents executed a search warrant authorized by a court as part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation. Officials did not publicly disclose a complete account of the evidence being sought or all the details of the inquiry.
Reporting by CBS News and The Washington Post indicated that investigators were examining immigration paperwork dating back to Omar’s childhood. The documents reportedly involved paperwork completed by her late father when the family came to the United States as refugees from Somalia.
The details remain limited, and the reported focus of the investigation should not be confused with a finding of guilt. A search warrant authorizes investigators to look for specified evidence; it does not establish that the person whose home is searched committed a crime.
Omar has repeatedly rejected allegations against her and portrayed the renewed scrutiny as politically motivated. Her office’s statement following the search reiterated that she had done nothing wrong.
As of the latest reports, authorities had not publicly laid out a complete evidentiary case against the congresswoman. That leaves a critical distinction at the center of the story: the investigation is real, but its ultimate findings are not yet known.
Why the Timing Has Become a Political Flashpoint
The search took place less than a month before the November midterm elections, when control of Congress is at stake. That timing has intensified questions from Democrats about whether the action could influence the political environment surrounding Omar’s reelection campaign.
House Judiciary Committee Democrats raised concerns about the search, while senior Democratic leaders condemned the action and questioned the use of federal power against a sitting member of Congress so close to an election.
The criticism centers on more than Omar’s personal dispute with Trump. It touches on a broader principle: federal law enforcement must be able to investigate potential crimes, but its decisions should be grounded in evidence and applied without improper political influence.
The Justice Department has confirmed the existence of a court-authorized search but has not publicly provided a full explanation of the investigative rationale. Without that information, it is not possible to establish from the public record alone whether the timing was politically motivated or driven by investigative necessities.
That uncertainty is likely to keep the controversy alive. Democrats are demanding answers about the decision and its timing, while the investigation itself remains ongoing.
A Long-Running Clash Between Omar and Trump
Omar has been one of Trump’s most prominent congressional critics. Their political conflict has repeatedly drawn national attention, with disputes involving immigration, national identity, federal enforcement and the congresswoman’s background.
Trump has frequently criticized Omar in public, while Omar has accused him of spreading false claims and using inflammatory rhetoric against her and the Somali American community.
In the days before the search, Omar had also criticized Trump’s rhetoric about Somali Americans. The latest federal action therefore arrived against the backdrop of an already bitter political relationship—not in isolation.
Still, a history of public hostility does not by itself prove that a federal investigation was politically directed. Establishing improper interference would require evidence about how the investigation was initiated, authorized and conducted.
That distinction matters because the controversy involves two separate questions: whether investigators have a legitimate basis to pursue the case, and whether the administration has handled the matter in a politically appropriate way.
Both questions deserve scrutiny, but neither should be treated as settled before the relevant evidence is available.
Democrats Demand Answers as the Investigation Continues
Omar’s response has been echoed by Democratic colleagues who say the search raises serious concerns about the use of federal power. Some have called for accountability and greater transparency about the investigation.
Their criticism is also shaped by the election calendar. A federal search involving a sitting member of Congress in the final weeks before voters head to the polls is certain to draw heightened political attention, even when authorities have a judicial warrant.
The administration’s position and the investigators’ evidence will be crucial to determining how the controversy develops. If officials disclose a clear evidentiary basis for the search, that information will help the public evaluate the government’s actions. If significant questions remain unanswered, pressure for congressional oversight may intensify.
For now, the public has only a partial picture of the investigation. Officials have confirmed a court-authorized search, but have not disclosed all the evidence or publicly established that Omar committed a crime.
What Happens Next for Ilhan Omar?
The immediate questions are whether investigators will release additional information, whether Omar or her representatives will provide further details, and whether congressional leaders will seek formal oversight of the search.
Omar has made her own position unmistakable: she intends to continue speaking out and views the search as an attempt to intimidate a political opponent. The Trump administration’s critics have embraced that interpretation, while the legal justification for the search must ultimately be evaluated through the evidence and applicable law.
The coming days could bring more details about the investigation, new statements from lawmakers and further debate over the role of federal law enforcement during an election season.
For now, the most defensible conclusion is also the most consequential: a federal search has triggered a major political confrontation, Omar has publicly challenged the administration’s motives, and key questions about the investigation remain unanswered.
Her “I will not be silenced” declaration has become a rallying cry for her response. Whether the dispute grows into a wider congressional battle will depend on what investigators reveal next—and whether the government can explain its actions in a way that withstands public and legal scrutiny.
