Last Updated: September 22, 2026 
Image Source: Instagram
Lindsay Clancy’s defense has filed two motions challenging what occurred before her murder trial ended in a mistrial on September 4.
One motion seeks a judicial investigation into the conduct of the only juror who did not support a finding that Clancy lacked criminal responsibility. A separate filing asks the court to dismiss the criminal case instead of permitting prosecutors to try her again.
The requests do not establish that juror misconduct occurred or that the charges will be dismissed. Both issues remain for the court to consider.
Brownstone Law previously reported that Clancy had added attorney Martin G. Weinberg to her defense team to pursue a constitutional challenge in Lindsay Clancy Adds Attorney to Pursue Double Jeopardy Claim After Mistrial.
Defense Seeks Investigation of Holdout Juror
In a motion filed on September 18 and made public on September 21, Clancy’s lawyers asked the judge to question the holdout juror about several matters connected to the trial and deliberations.
The defense requested an inquiry into:
1. The juror’s alleged use of a cellphone during deliberations
2. The accuracy of answers provided on the pretrial juror questionnaire
3. Statements made when the judge questioned jurors before declaring a mistrial
4. Records of calls or text messages allegedly made during the hours of jury deliberations
Cellphone use is prohibited during jury deliberations. However, the filing contains defense allegations that have not been resolved by the court, and the juror has not been found to have committed misconduct.
Mistrial Followed an 11-1 Division
The trial ended after the jury reported that it could not reach a unanimous verdict despite several days of deliberations.
Eleven jurors reportedly supported finding Clancy not guilty by reason of a lack of criminal responsibility. The remaining juror believed that prosecutors had presented sufficient evidence to prove that Clancy understood her actions.
Clancy’s lawyers contend that concerns raised about the holdout juror required a more extensive judicial inquiry before the court ended the trial. The defense argues that the judge should have considered removing the juror and replacing him with an alternate if the reported conduct showed an inability or refusal to follow the court’s legal instructions.
Brownstone Law covered the defense’s earlier request for an acquittal in Lindsay Clancy Defense Seeks Acquittal After Murder Trial Mistrial.
Separate Motion Seeks Dismissal on Double-Jeopardy Grounds
In a separate motion filed on September 21, Clancy’s attorneys asked the judge to dismiss the criminal case rather than allow a second trial.
The defense argues that the mistrial should not have been declared without first adequately examining the concerns involving the holdout juror. On that basis, Clancy’s lawyers maintain that subjecting her to another trial would violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
A mistrial caused by a genuinely deadlocked jury ordinarily permits prosecutors to retry a defendant. Clancy’s motion challenges whether the jury was properly determined to be irreconcilably deadlocked and whether reasonable alternatives were sufficiently considered before the mistrial was declared.
The filing does not automatically prevent a retrial. The judge must determine whether the circumstances surrounding the mistrial provide a legal basis for dismissing the charges.
Prosecutors Have Not Announced a Retrial Decision
Prosecutors have not publicly confirmed whether they intend to try Clancy again. They also have not provided a substantive public response to the latest defense motions.
Clancy remains charged with three counts of murder in connection with the deaths of her children, Cora, Dawson and Callan. She remains in a psychiatric hospital while the criminal proceedings continue.
What Happens Next?
The court must decide whether to conduct the requested juror inquiry and whether the circumstances surrounding the mistrial support dismissal of the charges.
The judge could request written responses, conduct a hearing, question the juror or deny some or all of the requested relief. If the dismissal motion is denied and prosecutors elect to proceed, a new trial could be scheduled.
Because the defense has raised a constitutional double-jeopardy claim, a ruling on the dismissal request could also lead to further appellate proceedings. For now, no court has dismissed the charges, found that juror misconduct occurred or authorized a new trial date.
Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. It describes reported court filings and proceedings through September 22, 2026. Allegations contained in legal motions should not be treated as judicial findings.
