I'm one of the rare birds who watched a good bit of the Lindsey Clancy case without developing particularly strong feelings one way or the other about either the defendant or the verdict. So naturally it seemed rational to do a column on it.
Since the Internet is forever, I should probably note at this point that the case was that of a woman in Massachusetts who killed her three children in what was claimed to be the result of mental issues related to a combination of post-partum depression, psychosis, and inappropriate medication from poor medical care and follow-up.
As I write this, the trial has come to a conclusion with a hung jury, split 11-1 for acquittal. Now, "acquittal" in this case means a verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity", because Massachusetts does not have a verdict of "guilty by reason of insanity", as I've advocated for in these pages.
The split suggests that the Commonwealth's Attorney will have a difficult time refiling the charges and retrying the case. Were I he, I would probably reach out to the defense and try to negotiate some kind of outcome (plea deal) that results in an adequately-long confinement to a mental institution, presumably the one in which Mrs. Clancy is confined for the moment.
The defense attorney, on the other hand, while probably OK with a certain period of confinement to a mental facility, will want a deal for his client that not only limits the period of mandatory confinement, but does not result in a criminal record. We can't blame him; that's what he is paid to do.
As I wrote, the outcome remains to be seen, but my guess is that, unless one side or the other is completely intransigent, there will be some type of plea deal done. Again, no matter what happens, she is going to be in treatment for a long time.
But from my position as one without passion as far as the case is concerned, I could see some interesting things going on.
1. There was a curious split between liberals and conservatives -- liberals seemed to take up Mrs. Clancy's case, while conservatives saw her as a cold-blooded murderer. I'm a conservative, but I didn't get it.
As a conservative, I believe in the law. As I watched the prosecution and the defense, I was constantly considering (as a juror would) whether the evidence and testimony supported what Massachusetts law held as far as an insanity defense.
I wasn't immune to the sadness in there being three dead children, but the case wasn't about who had killed them -- it was about whether she was insane at the time according to Commonwealth law. This was not a whodunit; the jury needed to listen to the testimony and see the evidence and decide insanity.
The law included two considerations for the jury. First, unlike in most states, the law up there was that the burden of proof for insanity was on the prosecution. The defense did not have to prove insanity; they merely had to show evidence of it, while the prosecution had to prove Mrs. Clancy was sane. Secondly, the judge's instructions practically mandated acquittal. We'll get to that.
It certainly appears that the take of many conservatives is grounded on their predominant pro-life stance. No mother who takes her children's life, they feel, should "get away with it" without a long prison term. I get it. They see any taking of an innocent life the same way they see aborting a baby, and to allow it to go relatively unpunished is a horrible outcome.
It also seems that the take of many liberals, particularly the women (I've not heard much commentary from liberal men), is that post-partum mental issues are real and severe. They are, of course; no one doubts that and there are truly extreme cases needing treatment. Mrs. Clancy sought it, but seems to have gotten poor medical care along with negative reactions to the prescribed medications to alleviate the depression.
Why liberals? Because liberals default to identifying offended, mistreated, or underserved classes, especially women. Here is a woman whose post-partum issues were severe, then was mistreated by Big Medicine -- classic liberal victimization. Of course they'd come down on her side.
2. The jury discussions after the trial -- there have been interviews with jurors since the trial. The lone holdout has not spoken to date, but the dynamic appears to have been interesting.
Three female jurors spoke together in an interview soon after the trial, including the foreman. Their take was that the holdout had held out for days against acquittal against his own stated opinion that there was reasonable doubt. They were unable to persuade him despite that opinion.
One would think that's how it went, except another juror was interviewed separately. She had been leaning toward conviction early on, but was "persuaded" by others. I came away thinking that the first three interviewed had been some sort of bloc that had been loud in the room for acquittal from the start.
It's OK to be persuaded; any judge will tell you that is called "deliberations" in jury-speak. Interesting, I would think, that it appears that the three who got their narrative out first were the loudest in the jury room. I'd imagine the holdout wasn't enjoying himself all those hours.
3. The judge's instructions -- dealing with Commonwealth law was pretty hard for the prosecution; they had to prove sanity. They tried, with a set of psychiatric and psychological expert witnesses, but not terribly successfully. The defense attorney was extremely challenging to them on cross-examination, and the prosecution's experts didn't do too well. The defense's experts were certainly at least as persuasive, such that the prosecution (with the burden of proving sanity) couldn't be said to have won that part of the case.
Judges have a book of "standard" jury instructions; they don't just make them up on the spot. The judge will discuss proposed instructions to the prosecution and defense in advance, and they can be challenged and potentially removed, or others added during those discussions.
I served on a murder-trial jury once, and some of those instructions remain with me 40 years later, interestingly, they can apply to more than a trial, even as life lessons. Juries listen to those instructions.
The key one for me dealt with criminal responsibility. The judge had already instructed the jury that they needed to find "criminal responsibility" in order to convict. The jury understood what criminal responsibility referred to, of course.
The key instruction was that the defendant could not, under Massachusetts law, be held "criminally responsible if the defendant has a mental disease or defect ...". He further explained that "mental disease or defect" was a legal term and not a medical one, meaning that it was up to the jury to decide if there was a mental disease or defect based on testimony and evidence from trial.
To me, that was it, done, mandatory acquittal.
Forget all the expert testimony; there at best it was "my experts, your experts." What was known and well-presented at trial, and essentially conceded by the prosecution, was that Mrs. Clancy had well-documented post-partum issues, had sought medical care, had been prescribed drugs that had not helped, had gone back over and over for help unsuccessfully.
I cannot conceive of a juror who could hear that and not lump that under "mental disease or defect." I just can't. And if the defendant has such a mental disease or defect, she cannot be held criminally responsible. All the rest is commentary.
- - -
From here it remains to be seen where it goes. As I said earlier, the Commonwealth's Attorney may look at the 11-1 split and figure that his people did their best and all he can get is a plea deal since he is unlikely to do any better in a retrial.
If he does, he has to decide what charges to file. In Massachusetts, a first-degree murder charge requires a jury, while a lesser charge can be done before a judge in a bench trial. Does he think he has a better chance with a judge and so file only lesser charges? We'll see.
But ultimately, if anyone has heartburn over this whole situation, that three children are dead and no one ends up facing "justice" for their death, it doesn't matter who the experts are, or even who the attorneys are, or who was or was not on the jury.
They have only to look at the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. According to those laws, there was only one verdict allowed, and when all this is over, that verdict will not be a criminal conviction.
The proper verdict is "guilty by reason of insanity", as I write here, but you'll never see it in Massachusetts.
Copyright 2026 by Robert Sutton. Like what you read here? There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com and, after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around. Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.