一名法官周一否认了这一说法林赛·克兰西的动议驳回她的三重谋杀案，为可能的重审扫清道路。
“因为法院得出结论，基于陪审团的僵局，显然有必要进行无效审判，所以对谋杀指控的重审并没有侵犯克兰西不受双重危险的权利，”法官威廉·沙利文写道。
沙利文还拒绝了一项调查她以前审判中的拒绝陪审员的动议，以及检方对禁言令的请求。
法官驳回克兰西的驳回动议
沙利文拒绝了克兰西的以同样的罪名重审将侵犯她的双重危险权利，结论是法院限制对拒绝接受的陪审员的调查是适当的。
根据沙利文的说法，对这位拒不让步的陪审员的任何进一步询问“无疑会产生强制效果”。
“法庭理解被告和陪审员的沮丧，尽管尽了最大的努力，陪审团最终还是无法在这个情绪紧张而复杂的案件中做出裁决。他写道：“虽然一方当事人可能希望通过一种程序来增加案件获得有利结果的可能性，但法院的首要考虑必须是保护诉讼程序的公正性，避免强迫判决的可能性。”
沙利文还反驳了辩方的说法，即拒不让步的陪审员没有遵守法院对法律的指示。
“鉴于陪审团毫无疑问地陷入了僵局，法院过去和现在都不认为首席陪审员的笔记是多伊没有能力或拒绝审议或遵守法律的可靠证据，”他写道。
他还拒绝了无效审判宣布后媒体曝光的关于拒绝陪审员的证据。
“在给予律师充分的陈述机会并仔细考虑了辩护律师提出的替代方案后，法院宣布审判无效。法院根据当时已知的情况做出了判决。他写道：“从那以后曝光的信息不能破坏这一决定。”。
法官暂时驳回了禁言令的请求
沙利文还拒绝了检方在重审前发出禁言令的请求，认为他们未能证明庭外陈述“很有可能严重影响审判结果或损害陪审团的意见。”
“联邦没有充分证明辩护律师的法外言论会对陪审团的和解或任何重审的结果造成实质性损害，从而构成严重的伤害威胁。因此，英联邦未能履行其责任，证明事先限制这一极端补救措施是正当的，”他写道。
在拒绝这项动议时，沙利文指出，如果情况在新的审判之前发生变化，检察官可以再次要求禁言令，并提醒辩护律师凯文雷丁顿有关该州职业行为规则中的“道德义务”。
法官拒绝调查拒不合作的陪审员
沙利文拒绝了克兰西团队的一系列要求，即查看与拒绝合作的陪审员相关的记录，包括陪审团选择和审议的法庭记录以及拒绝合作的陪审员的电话记录。
“由于克兰西未能证明所要求的证据对她在谋杀起诉重审中的辩护是相关的和重要的，法院拒绝行使其自由裁量权命令出示。他写道：“在诉讼的这一点上，法院也看不出有任何有效的理由来审查宣誓后的陪审员多伊。”。
沙利文说，移交记录将违反陪审员的保密性，以及“阻止公民愿意在未来担任陪审员。”
“同样，所要求的这一信息对于被告提出的驳回动议并不重要，也与任何重审无关。在没有适当基础或理由的情况下允许这一请求将是对该陪审员隐私的不当侵犯，并将使公民不愿在未来担任陪审员，”他写道。
法官此前表示，克兰西可能会在2027年3月面临新的审判
克兰西将于11月16日重返法庭，届时沙利文法官表示，他计划为这位马萨诸塞州母亲安排一个审判日期。
沙利文法官表示，他希望新的审判在2027年3月开始，尽管检察官尚未宣布他们重审此案的计划。
Judge denies Lindsay Clancy＇s motion to dismiss case
A judge on Monday deniedLindsay Clancy＇smotion to dismiss her triple-murder case， clearing the way for a potential retrial．
＂Because the Court concludes that there was a manifest necessity for a mistrial based on the jury＇s deadlock， a retrial on the murder indictments does not violate Clancy＇s right not to be placed in double jeopardy，＂ Judge William Sullivan wrote．
Sullivan also denied a motion to investigate the holdout juror in her previous trial， as well as a prosecution request for a gag order．
Judge denies Clancy＇s motion to dismiss
Sullivan rejectedClancy＇sargument that being retried on the same charges would violate her double jeopardy rights， concluding that the court acted properly by limiting the inquiry into the holdout juror．
Any further questioning of that holdout juror ＂would undoubtedly have a coercive effect，＂ according to Sullivan．
＂The Court understands the frustration of the defendant and the jurors that despite the utmost diligence， the jury ultimately was unable to reach a verdict in this emotionally grueling and complicated case． While a party may desire a procedure that increases the odds of receiving a favorable outcome to the case， the Court＇s primary concern must be protecting the fairness of the proceedings and avoiding the possibility of a coerced verdict，＂ he wrote．
Sullivan also pushed back on the defense claim that the holdout juror failed to follow the court＇s instruction on the law．
＂Given that the jury unquestionably had reached an impasse， the Court did not and does not view the foreperson＇s notes as reliable evidence of Juror Doe＇s inability or refusal to deliberate or follow the law，＂ he wrote．
He also rejected evidence about the holdout juror that came to light in the media after the mistrial was declared．
＂The Court declared a mistrial after giving counsel a full opportunity to be heard and after carefully considering the alternatives proposed by defense counsel． The Court made its decision based on what was known at the time． Information that has since come to light cannot serve to undermine that decision，＂ he wrote．
Judge denies request for gag order， for now
Sullivan also denied the prosecution＇s request for a gag order ahead of a retrial， concluding they failed to prove that out-of-court statements pose ＂a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the outcome of the trial or prejudicing the jury venire．＂
＂The Commonwealth has not sufficiently demonstrated that defense counsel＇s extrajudicial speech poses a serious threat of harm by materially prejudicing the jury venire or the outcome of any retrial． Therefore， the Commonwealth has failed to meet its burden to justify the extreme remedy of a prior restraint，＂ he wrote．
In rejecting the motion， Sullivan noted that prosecutors could ask for a gag order again if the circumstances change ahead of a new trial， as well as reminded defense lawyer Kevin Reddington about the ＂ethical obligations＂ in the state＇s rules of professional conduct．
Judge rejects push to investigate holdout juror
Sullivan rejected a series of requests from Clancy＇s team to access records related to the holdout juror， including court records from jury selection and deliberations as well as the holdout＇s phone records．
＂Because Clancy has failed to demonstrate that the requested evidence is relevant and material to her defense at any retrial of the murder indictments， the Court declines to exercise its discretion to order production． Nor can the Court perceive any valid justification for examining Juror Doe under oath at this point in the proceedings，＂ he wrote．
Sullivan said turning over the records would violate juror confidentiality as well as ＂discourage citizens from being willing to serve as jurors in the future．＂
＂This requested information is， again， not material to the defendant＇s Motion to Dismiss or relevant to any retrial． The allowance of this request without the proper basis or justification would be an improper intrusion into this juror＇s privacy and would serve to discourage citizens from being willing to serve as jurors in the future，＂ he wrote．
Judge previously said Clancy could face new trial in March 2027
Clancy is due back in court on Nov． 16， when Judge Sullivan said he plans to schedule a trial date for the Massachusetts mother．
Judge Sullivan said he would like the new trial to begin in March 2027， though prosecutors have not yet announced their plans for retrying the case．
