Today in court
• Deliberations begin: The jury in the trial of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother accused of murder after strangling her three young children, has started deliberating. Clancy has pleaded not guilty to three counts of murder and faces life in prison if convicted.
• Defense’s argument: In his closing, Clancy’s attorney — who says she should not be held criminally responsible for the killings because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis — described her as a “darn good mother” and argued she received “lousy medical care” for mental illness.
• Prosecution’s case: Meanwhile, prosecutors have argued Clancy acted “intentionally, rationally, and swiftly” to kill her children. In closings today, they said she had the means to access great medical care and said her health care providers are not at fault.
• Editor’s note: Coverage of this story contains graphic descriptions of child killings, suicidal ideation, and an attempt to die by suicide.
Catch up on what happened in court as jury begins deliberating in Lindsay Clancy case
The jury is now deliberating in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy after weeks of testimony, wrapped up with closing arguments from both sides this morning.
The courtroom was packed with reporters and members of the public. A few women in the gallery were wearing pink, presumably in support of Clancy.
Before the closing arguments began, Clancy was seen wiping the corner of her eyes, and her shoulders shook as Judge William Sullivan reviewed the charges against her.
What’s at stake:
- The jury can consider charges of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or manslaughter.
- First-degree murder is punishable by life in prison without the possibility of parole. Second-degree murder is punishable by life in prison with the possibility of parole. Manslaughter is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
- If the jury finds Clancy not criminally responsible for the killings of her children, she could spend the rest of her life in a hospital — and eventually be released, the judge explained.
Defense:
- In his closing argument, defense attorney Kevin Reddington said evidence shows Clancy was “a darn good mother” and the killings happened “because of the damn medicine and the lousy medical care” Clancy received.
- Reddington said Clancy “lived for her kids” until doctors began overprescribing her medications. The evidence presented showed Clancy had raised concerns and fears about the medications, he said, and her handwritten notes show how her mental state deteriorated.
- Clancy is not “criminally responsible” for the crime because of her psychological state, he said, citing the expert opinion of forensic psychiatrist Dr. Phillip Resnick. The psychiatrist examined Clancy and testified she was “frankly psychotic” and not in control of her actions during the killings.
- Experts for both sides acknowledged during the trial that Clancy made a “serious suicide attempt,” Reddington said. The jury was also presented exhibits that support that, he said.
- The defense lawyer also accused police of not conducting a thorough investigation.
Prosecution:
- Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague told jurors that “there’s no dispute that Lindsay Clancy was suffering from a mental illness and that she tried to kill herself,” but the issue is if she “knew the difference between right and wrong” when she killed her three kids. Killing them “was a choice,” she said.
- Sprague argued Clancy interacted with the public and presented “herself as a functioning adult, a functioning mom.” She pointed out Clancy chose not to tell mandated reporters about thoughts of harming her kids and how she took her daughter to the doctor the day of the killings.
- Sprague also said Clancy did not immediately tell her husband that she heard a voice that directed her to kill the kids. Further, the failure of the suicide attempt shows that there was no voice in her head, Sprague argued, pointing out that the pills she took were not at a lethal level and cut wounds were “superficial.”
- Clancy had resources, support and access to great medical care but did not follow through on a plan, Sprague said. Medical providers aren’t at fault for Clancy’s depression because she wasn’t always being honest with her doctors about her condition and what medications she took, according to Sprague.
CNN’s Nicki Brown, Lauren del Valle, Eric Levenson, Maureen Chowdhury and Chelsea Bailey contributed reporting.
Judge commends counsel for trying a difficult case
After the jury exited the courtroom, Judge William F. Sullivan took a moment to commend all three attorneys for their work on the case.
“Unless you’ve tried a difficult murder like this one, you may not be aware how difficult and tough it is to try a case like this,” Sullivan said.
Jury starts deliberating in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial
Jurors started deliberating Thursday in the triple-murder trial of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother who argues she should not be held criminally responsible for fatally strangling her children, in a case that has spurred a national conversation about postpartum mental health.
Deliberations began after weeks of testimony from more than 80 witnesses, including Clancy’s former husband, medical providers who testified about her mental health struggles and emergency personnel who responded to the family’s Duxbury home.
Clancy’s defense attorney argues she should not be held criminally responsible for the killings because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis when she strangled her three children and attempted suicide in January 2023. Prosecutors, meanwhile, have argued Clancy killed her children “deliberately and meticulously.”
Clancy, who has pleaded not guilty to three counts of first-degree murder, could face life in prison if convicted. If jurors find her not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, prosecutors can petition to commit her to a psychiatric facility.
Here are the jury's verdict options
Judge William F. Sullivan showed the jury the verdict slips that the panel will use to come to a unanimous decision in Lindsay Clancy’s trial.
There are three verdict slips, one for each of Clancy’s three children.
Each verdict slip has several options: Not guilty, not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, guilty of first-degree murder, guilty of second-degree murder and guilty of manslaughter.
“Reaching a verdict in this case is not necessarily going to be an easy task,” he said.
Judge tells jury not to be influenced by "unpleasant" autopsy photos
Judge William F. Sullivan advised the jury not to be influenced by the “unpleasant” nature of the photos of the children’s autopsies.
“The images depicted are not pleasant,” he said. “Your verdict must not in any way be influenced by the fact that these images are unpleasant or graphic.”
“The defendant is entitled to a verdict based solely on the evidence and not one based on pity or sympathy for the decedents, which might be occasioned by the images depicted.”
He said the jury can consider the photos only regarding a clinical medical status or the nature of their injuries.
Judge reading final instructions to the jury
Judge William F. Sullivan is reading aloud jury instructions related to reasonable doubt, the jury’s role in the trial, rules of evidence and more.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, Sullivan said. The jury’s role is to determine the facts of the case, while the judge decides the law, he said.
The opening statements and closing arguments are not evidence, he said. Jurors can consider direct and circumstantial evidence and are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses.
These are largely standard jury instructions in Massachusetts.
"Their mom is the one that's killing them," prosecutor says of children's final moments
Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague finished her closing arguments by emphasizing Lindsay Clancy’s planning and the pain and suffering each of her children experienced.
“Taking Dawson first and moving him to a separate room, having Cora stay with Callan … that’s rational. That makes sense. That’s ordered thinking,” Sprague said before describing in detail how Clancy used the exercise band to strangle her 3-year-old son.
A female juror bowed her head as Sprague spoke; she later began wiping her eyes as the commonwealth’s attorney described the children’s final moments.
“Just think of that … being strangled and the pain and the confusion that they’re going through … and it’s being done by their mom.”
Prosecutor doubts Clancy’s claim that a voice directed her to kill her kids
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague reiterated the commonwealth’s doubts over Clancy’s claim that a male voice instructed her to kill her children and herself during a spell of psychosis.
After requesting a lawyer in the hospital after the incident, Clancy reported hearing this voice during the incident.
“When she woke in the hospital, and she knew she was alive, and the kids weren’t, she knew what she did was wrong. She said she felt horrified. And then, while still with a tube in her throat, she’s asking, ‘Do I have a lawyer?’” Sprague told the jury during the commonwealth’s closing argument.
“And then, then we get the justification, the excuse of the voice, and there are a few reasons why the voice doesn’t make sense.”
Sprague invoked the well-known case of Andrea Yates, who drowned her five children in Texas in 2001 and reportedly heard a voice telling her to do so. It was mentioned by a defense expert’s testimony during Clancy’s trial.
“You heard him talk about Andrea Yates, about how she heard voices to kill her children for months, and what’d she do? She committed herself five times. She tried to kill herself twice to avoid harming her children.”
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington objected. The judge told Sprague to move on.
“Lindsey Clancy hears this voice one time and does it. Doesn’t try to lock herself in the bathroom. Call Patrick. Call 911. Doesn’t try to leave. … She doesn’t try any tactics to avoid the voice. She just obeys,” Sprague said.
Clancy’s claim to have heard the voice only that one time is a red flag, Sprague said. “She never heard it before, and she hasn’t heard it since.”
Clancy also had to choose the location and method of the killings because the voice didn’t specify, Sprague said.
The prosecutor cast doubt on the idea that Clancy was in psychosis with no free will during the incident yet could make all the choices required by the killings.
Clancy planned her husband’s absence to give herself enough time for the killings, prosecutor says
Hours before killing her children, Lindsay Clancy searched CVS inventory online and then called the local store to inquire about a product for her daughter. She planned the pharmacy stop for her then-husband Patrick, who she would also ask to pick up some takeout for dinner, prosecutor Jennifer Sprague said.
That’s because Clancy wanted to know she’d have enough time to perpetrate the killings, Sprague said.
“Because she’s adding to this errand that she’s sending Patrick out on, and she has to make sure she’s not interrupted,” Sprague said during the prosecution’s closing argument. “She wants him to go to CVS and have the medication there and get it, and then go on to 3V, so she has time to do what she needs to do.”
Clancy called in the takeout order for herself and Patrick at 5:10 p.m. She was able to recall the order and give Patrick’s phone number as the pick-up person, Sprague said.
Then as Patrick was nearly out the door, Clancy asked him to make the CVS run, “acting like it’s this last-minute thought,” Sprague said.
Patrick agreed and asked his then-wife to text him the product she wanted. Clancy texted him the information at 5:15 p.m.
He called her at 5:33 p.m. from CVS but she didn’t answer.
Clancy called him back a minute later. They spoke briefly then Patrick left the store to pick up the food order and return home.
By the time Patrick got to the house, Clancy strangled her children and attempted suicide.
Prosecutor: Defense's timeline of killings "does not make sense"
Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague argued that the defenses timeline of when Lindsay Clancy killed the children “does not make sense.”
Sprague said Clancy told Dr. Gregory Saathoff that when she got the call from her husband, Patrick Clancy, she was “at the fridge getting chicken nuggets out of the fridge to make dinner. You heard from Patrick when he’s leaving, Dawson is sitting on the couch eating chicken nuggets and green beans out of a bowl.”
Sprague notes that crime scene photos show “two bowls on the couch. Yes, the pink one seems to have some vegetables in it, but there’s the blue one there as well. And Patrick saw Dawson eating the chicken nuggets and green beans.”
“So why would the defendant make that up? Why would she say she’s doing that during the phone call?” Sprague asks. “Because if she’s already killed the kids because of a voice and being held and it being against her will and she’s like a puppet, then she can’t get a call and miss it, and then call the person back and have a conversation and then hang up. A puppet can’t do those things.”
Sprague added, “Those are decisions and choices and actions that she’s controlling. So, she has to explain away the phone call because her behavior and her ability to have the phone call don’t make sense if she’s being compelled by a voice, if she’s not in control, and you further on that, you have the phone.”
Prosecutors conclude their closing argument
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague has finished giving her closing argument, which last about an hour.
The judge is now giving the jury additional instructions.
Many people — including several prosecution witnesses, journalists, and members of the public — just left the courtroom. Some members of the public who were waiting in line outside the courtroom are now being let in. One woman is wearing a bright pink blazer.
When the judge asked if they wanted a break, several jurors emphatically shook their heads “no.”
Prosecutor walks through timeline of how Clancy killed her children
The Commonwealth is now walking through the timeline of how they believe Lindsay Clancy killed her children before attempting suicide.
“There wouldn’t be enough time for her to bring those kids down to the basement and strangle each one in three minutes,” Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague told the jury.
Although Patrick Clancy testified that his memory of finding his children once he arrived home was unclear, Sprague reminded jurors that first responders testified that they saw him unwinding the exercise bands from around his children’s necks.
“That’s why you had to listen to the 911 to show that she did stand over their limp bodies and strangle them for one to two minutes after they went unconscious, because those weren’t knotted, they weren’t tied. They don’t just stay there on their own.”
Prosecutor says Lindsay Clancy killing her kids "was a choice"
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague outlined what she said was Lindsay Clancy’s motive for killing her three children.
“She was depressed. She was exhausted. She was done. She didn’t want to try anymore. She felt damaged,” prosecutor Jennifer Sprague said. “But those kids, those kids were her protective factor. Those kids were keeping her from ending her misery. So she had to remove the protective factor.”
Failure of suicide attempt shows there was no voice in Clancy's head, prosecutor says
The fact that Lindsay Clancy’s suicide attempt did not succeed shows there was no hallucinatory voice in her head compelling her to act, prosecutor Jennifer Sprague argued.
After killing her children, Clancy took pills, cut her wrists and neck and jumped out of a second-floor window, Sprague said. The pills were not at a lethal level, the cut wounds were “superficial,” and the fall left her partially paralyzed, the prosecutor said.
“We’re not saying she didn’t want to kill herself,” she said. “She wanted to kill herself, but her natural instinct to live was fighting against that.”
“That goes against it being a voice. Because if she’s compelled to do it, if this voice is making her do it, she would just do it. There would be no fight, there would be no struggle, there would be no resistance to dying. But there was,” Sprague said.
Prosecutor highlights what Clancy did and didn't say after killings
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague highlighted what Lindsay Clancy said – and what she didn’t say – to her husband, Patrick Clancy, after killing the children.
Patrick Clancy came home from running errands to an unusually quiet house and found blood upstairs, Sprague said, and he then saw his wife bloody and lying in the yard.
“And he says to her, ‘What did you do?’ And her response is, ‘I tried to kill myself,’ and then it’s ‘Where are the kids?’ ‘In the basement?’
“It’s not ‘I heard a voice. I was compelled to do this. I didn’t want to do this. Go help the kids. They’re hurt. They’re in the basement. Go save them.’ No. It’s, ‘I tried to kill myself,’ and ‘the kids are in the basement.’”
She said the audio may not have been clear on the 911 call played in court, but Patrick Clancy testified as to what she said.
Lindsay Clancy’s shoulders rose and fell steadily as if she was taking deep breaths as Sprague began describing Patrick Clancy returning home.
Prosecutor: Clancy was able to control behavior in the weeks before killing her children
Lindsay Clancy was able to “conform her behavior to the law” in the weeks before she killed her children and attempted suicide, Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague said during her closing arguments.
“All throughout January (2023), she’s showing her ability to know right from wrong, and to conform her behavior to the requirements of the law in all the activities she does in January,” Sprague said.
Sprague said video evidence shows Clancy was able to throw a birthday party and monitor her kids, “typical mom birthday stuff.”
“Everyone that interacted with her said, ‘Seems a little tired, but OK,’” Sprague noted.
In another instance, at a science museum, Sprague argued that again Clancy was able to control herself despite being in a stressful environment.
“If you watched that video and you didn’t know who the Clancy family was, and we asked you pick out the woman who is depressed. Pick out the woman who wants to kill herself. Pick out the woman who is about to kill her kids. You couldn’t pick her out,” added. “She’s completely calm. All her behaviors are typical and normal because she’s able to control her behavior.”
Clancy's internet searches are evidence of planning the killings, prosecutor says
Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague now says Lindsay Clancy’s internet searches for children’s medication and her decision to map out the time it would take to pick up dinner that night shows evidence of planning the killings.
The defense wants you to believe she made the searches because she was in distress, Sprague said.
“If you’re in distress, don’t send him anywhere. Make food at home. Have him cook. Get delivery,” the assistant district attorney said.
Clancy's actions on day of killings show she knew right from wrong, prosecutor says
Lindsay Clancy’s actions and behavior on January 24, 2023, prior to the killings, show she knew right from wrong and could act within the law, prosecutor Jennifer Sprague said.
“Everything that happened that day, every person she interacted with, every situation she was in, shows you she knew the difference between right and wrong, and she could conform her behavior to the law,” Sprague said.
That morning, Clancy took her daughter, Cora, to a doctor for a check-up, and the doctor did not note anything amiss. Clancy later played in the snow with two of her children in the backyard and sent photos to her family.
In court, Clancy has largely been facing straight ahead, not turning her head to look at the attorney speaking near the jury box. When Sprague began speaking about the events on January 24, she turned her head to look in her direction.
Prosecutor: Clancy chose not to tell mandated reporters about thoughts of harming kids
Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague told the jury Lindsay Clancy was able to tell the difference between right and wrong when she interacted with the public and presented “herself as a functioning adult, a functioning mom.”
“She had those thoughts at the beginning of December of harming her kids, and she told (then-husband) Patrick and her mother about them,” Sprague said during the commonwealth’s closing argument. “But who she didn’t tell is important and very telling.”
Sprague asserted Clancy didn’t tell any of her healthcare providers of her thoughts to harm her children because they are mandated reporters and the police might take away her children.
Jurors appear stoic but some losing focus during prosecutor's presentation
The jury continues to appear very stoic as they listen to the second closing argument now from a prosecutor.
A few panelists, however, seem to be less focused than they were during the defense closing.
One female juror keeps fiddling in her seat and glancing around the courtroom. A male juror is intermittently stroking his beard and picking at his fingers.
