The jury couldn't agree. Now the defense is asking Judge William Sullivan to decide the case himself. Join us live as we cover the post-mistrial hearing in Commonwealth v. Lindsay Clancy in Plymouth Superior Court. The main event is Kevin Reddington's renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty under Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 25(b)(2). This is not a request to overrule the jury's split. A Rule 25 motion tests legal sufficiency. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, could any rational juror find criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt? The defense says no. They point out that all six forensic experts, three on each side, agreed Clancy was suffering from a serious mental illness on January 24, 2023. The Commonwealth opposes the motion. Why it matters: if the motion is allowed, Clancy is found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, and double jeopardy bars a retrial. If it's denied, the case heads toward trial number two. We'll also track the other moving pieces: the separate double jeopardy motion from Reddington and Martin Weinberg, the defense motion to investigate the holdout juror (which may be continued), and whether a retrial date gets set. What we'll break down: What Rule 25(b)(2) allows after a hung jury, and why the five-day deadline mattered The Latimore sufficiency standard applied to criminal responsibility Why "serious mental illness" isn't automatically the end of the inquiry under McHoul The realistic odds, and what happens next either way Just facts. Balls and strikes. #LindsayClancy #ClancyTrial #DefenseDiaries #TrueCrime #CourtTV #LiveCourt #Mistrial #DoubleJeopardy #InsanityDefense #CriminalResponsibility #KevinReddington #PlymouthSuperiorCourt #Massachusetts #LegalAnalysis #TrueCrimeCommunity