A courtroom ruling has closed one proposed path out of a closely watched murder case.
The decision leaves unresolved charges in place after a jury failed to reach a verdict.
Judge William Sullivan denied Lindsay Clancy’s motion for a not guilty verdict in the deaths of her three children.
The order came Thursday, two days after defense attorney Kevin Reddington argued the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient.
Sullivan found the trial record contained physical and circumstantial evidence capable of supporting the murder charges.
He wrote that a rational fact finder could determine the required elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
That finding addresses whether the evidence could support a guilty verdict, not whether a jury must deliver one.
The denial also does not resolve Clancy’s claim that her mental state made her not criminally responsible.
Clancy’s first trial ended in a mistrial after jurors could not agree on a verdict.
She returned to court Tuesday as lawyers and the judge considered what happens next.
The defense sought a not guilty ruling from Sullivan without another jury deciding the charges.
Reddington argued that prosecutors had failed to present enough evidence on every essential element of the offenses.
He urged Sullivan to look closely at the trial record rather than simply accept that some evidence existed.
At one point, Reddington asked where the evidence showed that Clancy herself had committed the killings.
He also discussed testimony about Patrick Clancy returning home with food from a restaurant.
Sullivan’s written response rejected the argument that the record was legally insufficient to support the murder charges.
The judge cited evidence described as both physical and circumstantial when explaining why the case could proceed.
His decision does not say every allegation has been proved or erase the jury’s earlier deadlock.
It means Clancy cannot obtain the requested acquittal through this particular motion.
The case concerns the January 2023 deaths of Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, eight months.
Clancy admitted in a separate civil proceeding that she killed the children, according to the report.
Her defense at trial argued that she could not be held criminally responsible because of her mental state.
That distinction shaped the first trial: the dispute centered on legal responsibility rather than a straightforward denial.
Reddington’s latest motion pressed a different question about the sufficiency of the prosecution’s proof.
The shift put the trial record itself under renewed scrutiny following the mistrial.
A judge reviewing that record must decide whether the evidence could support a conviction under the applicable standard.
Sullivan concluded that it could, allowing the murder charges to remain unresolved.
Clancy, however, has not been convicted, and a deadlocked jury does not establish guilt.
The ruling also leaves the defense able to contest the prosecution’s case in future proceedings.
A separate courtroom dispute concerns what attorneys may say publicly while the case remains active.
Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has sought a gag order aimed at Reddington.
That request is distinct from Sullivan’s decision on the motion for a not guilty verdict.
The judge’s denial does not itself decide whether restrictions on public statements are warranted.
The first jury’s inability to agree leaves prosecutors facing choices about the case’s next phase.
As previously reported, they have not announced whether they will seek another trial on the same charges.
Options described after the mistrial included different charges, a negotiated resolution, or dropping the prosecution.
Thursday’s order does not identify which course prosecutors will take.
For the children’s family and everyone following the case, the ruling extends a painful period without a final verdict.
It also underscores the difference between a defense argument failing and a defendant being found guilty.
The court rejected a request to end the case on the existing trial record, Mediaite reported.
The prosecution still faces the burden of proving its charges in any future trial.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
