A major Mᴀssachusetts murder trial ended in a mistrial, and within days another high-profile case involving a mother accused of killing her children moved into the spotlight. Janette MacAusland’s attorney has now asked prosecutors and the court to reconsider the case against his client, creating an unusual moment in Mᴀssachusetts criminal law and reopening questions about mental illness, criminal responsibility and the limits of the insanity defense.

The timing is central. On September 4, a judge declared a mistrial in Lindsay Clancy’s case after jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict. Clancy had been accused of killing her three children in 2023, and her defense argued that severe postpartum psychosis left her unable to understand the wrongfulness of her actions. On September 10, her attorney separately asked a judge to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity rather than subject her to another trial. Prosecutors had not yet announced whether they would seek a retrial.

Against that backdrop, attorney Joseph Krowski Jr. appeared in court for Janette MacAusland, a 49-year-old Wellesley mother accused of killing her two children, Kai and Ella. Krowski argued that prosecutors should take another look at the first-degree murder charges. He told reporters that MacAusland’s case was not simply another version of the Clancy case and that he was not yet prepared to identify a particular mental-health defense.

The distinction matters because the two cases involve different factual and medical circumstances. MacAusland’s children were 7 and 6, while Clancy’s children were 5, 3 and 8 months old. CBS Boston reported that Krowski specifically said MacAusland’s situation was not postpartum. He nevertheless said his client had a history of mental illness and argued that the national discussion following the Clancy trial should prompt prosecutors to reconsider how cases involving severe mental-health problems are handled.

MacAusland’s own case remains procedurally unresolved. She faces two first-degree murder charges and has pleaded not guilty. The children were found ᴅᴇᴀᴅ at their Wellesley home on April 24. Prosecutors have said they are still awaiting the official cause and manner of death from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. That delay prevented the expected probable-cause hearing from moving forward at the September 10 appearance.

Krowski argued that his client should not remain incarcerated while prosecutors wait for the medical examiner. He requested dismissal or, alternatively, bail. The judge rejected the request and ordered MacAusland to remain in custody without bail. Court TV reported that the probable-cause hearing was scheduled for October 29.

The prosecution has pointed to evidence already gathered in the investigation, including body-camera footage from Vermont police, according to Court TV. Prosecutors also said a grand jury had been convened but would need to be reconvened after the medical examiner’s findings were received. The precise effect of those findings on the case remains unknown.

The broader public discussion surrounding these cases has become unusually intense because both involve allegations against mothers and questions surrounding mental illness. But legal experts and attorneys involved in the cases have emphasized that criminal responsibility must be determined individually. The fact that two defendants are discussed in the same news cycle does not establish that their medical histories, legal defenses or evidentiary situations are the same.

For MacAusland, the immediate questions are therefore procedural as much as substantive: when will the medical examiner complete the report, when will prosecutors reconvene the grand jury, and what evidence will ultimately be presented in court? Those answers could shape the next phase of the case.

For now, the murder charges remain pending, MacAusland remains in custody without bail, and no trial has determined her guilt or criminal responsibility. The October hearing is expected to provide another important look at where the prosecution stands and what comes next.

Source: https://nypost.com/2026/09/10/us-news/janette-macauslands-attorney-requests-child-murder-case-be-dismissed/?utm_campaign=nypost&utm_medium=referral