“This entire case is based on speculation,” attorney Kevin Reddington said during the first hearing since Clancy's trial ended Sept. 4 with a deadlocked jury. They were split 11 to 1 in her favor.
During that trial, Reddington didn't dispute that Clancy killed the children at the family's home in 2023. Instead, the defense sought to persuade the jury that the 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse was not criminally responsible because of mental disease, a rare condition called postpartum psychosis.
But at Tuesday's hearing, Reddington sought to persuade Judge William Sullivan — the same judge who presided over the first trial — to acquit Clancy.
There is, Reddington contended, not enough evidence “that this woman killed those children.” He pointed to matters ranging from her condition when she was found, badly injured and bleeding in the yard outside her home, to her lack of memory of what happened when she woke up in a hospital. At the first trial, her now ex-husband and first responders testified that they arrived at the house and discovered she had tried to kill herself right after killing the children.
“Where is the admission? Where does she say that she did this?” Reddington asked, going on to recap his arguments that she also was psychotic and delusional at the time of the children's deaths. He didn’t offer any alternative theories or evidence about who might be responsible.
Prosecutor Shanan Buckingham called his argument “laughable,” pointing to various evidence raised during the trial. In court papers filed Monday, prosecutors recapped their arguments that there was enough evidence to convict Clancy.
