A mother accused of killing her two children asked a judge to throw out the case while the state still waited for the medical examiner’s report—and the judge said no.
Story Snapshot
- The defense sought dismissal or $25,000 cash bail with conditions.
- The medical examiner had not issued the cause and manner of death.
- The judge denied dismissal and bail; the case continues.
- Prosecutors plan to recall a grand jury after the report arrives.
What The Defense Asked For And Why It Hit A Wall
Defense attorney Joseph Krowski urged the court to dismiss charges or release Janette MacAusland on reasonable bail. He tied both requests to a gap in the record: no official cause and manner of death from the medical examiner yet. He argued the state should not jail a defendant while it waits on a key report. The judge denied both requests and kept her held without bail, a choice courts often make in severe violent cases with high public risk.
Reports from the hearing show the defense leaned on timing. They said months had passed without a probable-cause ruling because the medical examiner’s findings were still pending. They also pressed mental-health concerns, asking the district attorney to rethink “fullest extent” prosecution. Those points may matter at sentencing or for treatment plans later. They rarely carry a legal basis to dismiss a case at the front end, especially in a double-homicide of children.
Where The Case Stands After The Hearing
Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Hickman told the court the Commonwealth awaited the medical examiner’s report and would then present the case to a recalled grand jury. That step is common in homicide cases that turn on forensic proof. Prosecutors told the judge they expected findings within weeks. The court kept MacAusland in custody and continued the matter to a later date. The judge’s ruling signals the process remains active and headed to superior court for potential indictment.
The hearing also showed how a delay can cut both ways. The defense said the state’s case lacked an evidentiary core without the report. The Commonwealth replied that manner and means of death are central, so it made sense to wait for the medical examiner. Judges tend to give the state short runway to gather a final report in serious felonies. That is consistent with Massachusetts practice and common sense in violent crime cases.
Why A Delay Argument Is Not A Silver Bullet In Massachusetts
Massachusetts law sets a high bar to dismiss for delay. Defendants must show the Commonwealth caused unreasonable delay and that it counts under the timing rules. If the defense asked for continuances or agreed to them, those periods often do not count. Delay tied to waiting on forensic results may not be enough for dismissal, unless the defense can prove real harm from the wait. Courts call this threshold “high,” and rulings back that up.
Janette MacAusland case, where the 49yr old Wellesley, accused of strangling her son Kai (7) and daughter Ella (6) had her attorney request release from custody and case dismissal due to health issues. She confessed to the killings and a suicide attempt after fleeing to Vermont
— Larkhill (@22Larkhill) September 11, 2026
Defense lawyers sometimes cite the one-year clock in the case-management rule and say “time’s up.” But the rule excludes many periods, including time for pretrial motions and other proceedings. A single number on a calendar does not decide it. The judge looks at who caused the delay, whether the defense objected on time, and what prejudice, if any, the delay caused. On this record, the judge found no basis to dismiss now and kept the case moving.
The Mental-Health Lens And The Conservative Test
The defense asked the district attorney to rethink the case in light of mental illness and cited the recent Lindsay Clancy saga. The court did not change course. Mercy and treatment matter, but they follow facts. Public safety and equal justice come first. A system that bends only for the headline case fails both victims and defendants in the long run. Prosecutors and judges must ground decisions in evidence, not messaging or trends.
The common-sense approach is simple: secure the facts, protect the public, and then debate mercy with a full record. That is what the court chose. The Commonwealth said it will return to a grand jury when the medical examiner finishes. The judge kept detention in place and denied dismissal. That path respects due process without risking public safety. It also preserves the chance to weigh mental health fully at the right stage—after the facts are in.
What To Watch Next
Watch for the medical examiner’s cause-and-manner findings. That report will shape the grand jury’s view and may lock in or weaken parts of the case. Expect prosecutors to recall the grand jury and seek indictment soon after it arrives. If the report raises new questions, the defense could press for bail with strict conditions and a detailed treatment plan. If it confirms the state’s theory, the case will likely head to superior court on a tight track.
The judge’s line stands for now: no dismissal, no bail. The law favors patience over haste in homicides because mistakes are costly and final. Families deserve the truth, not a shortcut. A careful, fact-driven process beats a quick headline every time. When the report lands, the real test begins—can the state prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and can the defense show why the law should show mercy within it?
Sources:
nbcboston.com, theswellesleyreport.com, dailymail.com, bostonglobe.com, youtube.com, serpalaw.com
