Jury begins deliberations in Lindsay Clancy murder trial after closing arguments dispute her mental state at time of killings
Jurors in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy began deliberating Thursday after closing arguments concluded at Plymouth Superior Court in Massachusetts. Both sides agree Clancy fatally strangled her three children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months — with exercise resistance bands on January 24, 2023, and that she subsequently jumped from a second-floor window, leaving her partially paralyzed. The central question before the jury is whether Clancy is criminally responsible for the killings, with the defense arguing she was in a state of postpartum psychosis and the prosecution arguing she acted with deliberate intent.
After more than five weeks of testimony from approximately 80 witnesses, jurors deliberated for just over three hours Thursday before being sent home and instructed to resume Friday morning. Clancy, now 36, has pleaded not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. If convicted of murder in the first degree, she faces life in prison without parole; if found not criminally responsible, she could be committed to a state psychiatric facility.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington argued in closing that Clancy was a "darn good mother" whose mental health deteriorated because of what he described as "the damn medicine and the lousy medical care" she received. He cited forensic psychiatrist Dr. Phillip Resnick, who testified Clancy was "frankly psychotic" — "times three" — at the time of the killings. Reddington pointed to Clancy's handwritten notes, saying her journal had devolved into "chicken scratches because her mind is gone" by December 2022, and argued the defense's own reading of evidence about the elastic workout bands showed she held them around her children's necks for minutes, consistent with a dissociated state rather than deliberate knotting.
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague did not dispute that Clancy suffered from mental illness or that her suicide attempt was genuine, but argued those facts did not settle the question of criminal responsibility. Sprague told jurors Clancy acted "intentionally, rationally, and swiftly": she called CVS to confirm a product was in stock, placed a takeout order, and sent her then-husband Patrick on a combined errand timed to give her a window to kill the children before he returned. "She needed to know not generally, but exactly 'How much time will I have?'" Sprague said. Sprague also argued that Clancy's ability to answer a phone call from Patrick — and call him back — after the killings had begun was inconsistent with being controlled by a hallucinated voice. "A puppet can't do those things," she said. Sprague further noted that Clancy had not disclosed thoughts of harming her children to her mental health providers, arguing this showed she understood those thoughts were wrong.