Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial may be heading toward the outcome legal experts feared most as jurors continue struggling to reach a unanimous verdict. The jury reported being deadlocked twice before returning for a sixth day of deliberations Thursday. Judge William Sullivan delivered a special instruction encouraging the nine women and three men to reexamine their positions without surrendering their honestly held beliefs merely to reach an agreement.
If the impasse continues, Sullivan could declare a mistrial and leave prosecutors facing the difficult decision of whether to try the emotionally charged case again. “Just a disaster if it’s a hung jury,” criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor Mark Bederow told the Daily Mail. “For Clancy, Reddington, the prosecutors, the judge and anyone else who is interested in this, a hung jury is excruciating.”
The panel has spent approximately 30 hours deliberating after hearing more than six weeks of testimony about the deaths of Clancy’s three children.
Clancy does not dispute that she strangled Cora Dawson and Callan, with exercise resistance bands inside the basement of the family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts, home on January 24, 2023. She then injured herself and jumped from a second-floor window, leaving her paralyzed from the waist down.
The defense argues that Clancy was experiencing postpartum psychosis and lacked criminal responsibility for her actions. Prosecutors acknowledge that she experienced mental health issues but maintain that she deliberately planned the killings and understood that her actions were wrong.
After jurors reported a second deadlock Wednesday, Sullivan delivered a Tuey-Rodriguez instruction, sometimes referred to as a “dynamite charge,” before sending them back to deliberate.
Attorney Blasts Prosecution’s Handling Of Mental Health Evidence
5Bederow said prosecutors had an obligation to bring the case but criticized how they presented their argument against Clancy’s insanity defense. “This is a very clunky, choppy, disjointed case put together by a prosecution team who just doesn’t seem to appreciate the intricacies and nuances of these kinds of cases,” he said.
The attorney described the prosecution’s approach to mental illness as “very antiquated.” He argued that prosecutors appeared to expect a defendant claiming an insanity defense to be “standing in a corner, staring at the wall, rocking back and forth, talking nonsense.”
Under Massachusetts law, once the issue of criminal responsibility is properly raised, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible at the time of the alleged offense.
The defense has argued that Clancy’s declining mental health and the numerous medications she had been prescribed contributed to her condition. Clancy has also filed a civil lawsuit accusing her medical providers of failing to diagnose and treat her psychiatric illness properly. The allegations in that separate case remain unresolved.
Former Judge Condemns Religion Questions During Trial
5Bederow also criticized prosecutors for questioning Clancy’s former mother-in-law, Susan, about Catholic teachings concerning murder. “That’s a dog whistle for the jury,” he said of the Catholicism question. “I can’t fathom that was an accident.”
Religion emerged again when a prosecution psychologist testified that he had asked Clancy whether she knew suicide was a “mortal sin.”
The defense moved for a mistrial following the testimony. Sullivan denied the request but instructed jurors to disregard the statement. “Raising Catholicism or religion is a violation under Massachusetts General Rules of Evidence,” Erskine said. “It’s expressly barred.”
She called the question directed at Susan “one of the most egregious mistakes I’ve ever seen by a prosecutor.” Although prosecutors characterized the incident as an accident, Erskine said it appeared “intentional” because attorneys should understand the applicable evidentiary rules. “The issue of criminal responsibility is something the Commonwealth may have underestimated,” she added.
Trial Renewed Debate Over Maternal Mental Health Care
5The Plymouth District Attorney’s Office has urged jurors to decide the case based on the evidence rather than treating it as a referendum on maternal mental health care. Erskine argued that separating the two issues would be difficult after jurors heard testimony about Clancy’s repeated efforts to obtain help.
Witnesses testified that Clancy experienced suicidal thoughts and contacted a crisis hotline more than once. She was reportedly not hospitalized on those occasions because she did not have a specific suicide plan. “I’ve seen suicides in my courtrooms,” Erskine said. “Not one case that I ever saw was anything other than impulsive. The notion that there has to be a plan in Massachusetts in order to get the degree of help you need is outrageous and needs to change.”
Lindsay Clancy’s Trial Draws Support From Maternal Mental Health Advocates
5The trial has attracted widespread attention from people concerned about postpartum disorders and the treatment available to mothers experiencing psychiatric crises. Clancy has received support online and outside the courthouse, where women dressed in pink have gathered during the proceedings.
