A judge declared a mistrial Sept. 4 in the Massachusetts murder case against a mother charged with strangling her three children in 2023, raising questions about the justice system’s understanding of mental health and criminal responsibility.
Lindsay Clancy, 36, of Duxbury, did not dispute that she strangled her three children with exercise bands at her home on Jan. 24, 2023, before attempting suicide by jumping from a second-story window. The fall left her paralyzed from the waist down.
Clancy pleaded not guilty to three counts of first-degree murder while raising an insanity defense, arguing she was not criminally responsible because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis. Under Massachusetts law, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was sane, understood her actions were wrong and had the capacity to control them to convict her.
William Sullivan, an associate justice of the Massachusetts Superior Court, declared the mistrial after jurors deadlocked, with a single juror refusing to join the other 11 in finding Clancy not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.
The case has drawn national attention as the conversation around postpartum mental illness and the limits of the insanity defense gains momentum, with Seton Hall criminal justice majors sharing concerns about the justice system’s understanding of mental health.
For some students, the volume of evidence presented by prosecutors was decisive. Naysha Pascale Gauthier, a sophomore criminal justice major, said she began following the case with sympathy for Clancy but changed her mind as the trial progressed.
"I was biased. I was like, 'Okay, this is another woman who didn’t have help with three kids under five,' but then I looked into it, and she did say afterwards…that she had psychosis, which—why wouldn't you [say] that beforehand?" Gauthier said.
Gauthier pointed to evidence about Clancy's actions on the day of the killings as proof, in her view, that the crimes were planned rather than the product of a psychotic break.
“She looked up the distance between the takeout and her husband," Gauthier said.
Prosecutors made that same evidence central to their case. Jennifer Sprague, assistant district attorney at Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office, told jurors during closing arguments that Clancy asked her then-husband, Patrick Clancy, to pick up takeout and a prescription and used her phone to calculate how long he would be gone before she strangled the children.
Sprague argued Clancy killed Dawson, her 5-year-old child, first, "out of the presence of the other children," and that each child felt pressure from the exercise bands for up to 30 seconds as Clancy continued strangling them.
Sprague described Clancy as "completely indifferent" to her children's suffering, telling jurors, "that's extreme atrocity or cruelty." Earlier, Sprague argued the case amounted to "deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty," and Clancy was a "functioning mom" who knew the difference between right and wrong.
Madison Hannah, a sophomore criminal justice major, also believed Clancy was guilty throughout the trial, pointing to additional evidence and witness testimony.
"I did think that she killed all three of her kids, but now I do think that since there's been … more evidence, and the case was brought to trial, and they brought witnesses to this stand,” Hannah said.
Hannah also faulted the initial police response, saying investigators "kind of just [saw] it for what it was, and they weren't trying to…dive deeper into it." She argued medical providers "kind of swept her postpartum depression and psychological issues under the rug."
The trial has sparked protests from women's rights groups, with demonstrations taking place outside the Plymouth Courthouse over the handling of Clancy’s postpartum depression.
Meghan Cliffel, a maternal mental health advocate who said she experienced postpartum psychosis in 2015, told PBS NewsHour she thought, "that could have been me," upon first reading about Clancy's case, adding that the intense public interest has not been matched by "proactive support for women to prevent this highly treatable, temporary illness."
Testimony from the trial presented competing illustrations of Clancy’s mental state in the days leading up to the killings. CNN reported that the psychiatrist who performed an examination of Clancy shortly after the murders testified that she was “calm and cooperative.”
The same report examined Patrick Clancy’s testimony regarding a phone call between him and the defendant a week later, in which he told the courts his ex-wife did not initially bring up their children but described her own experience: “She said she heard a man’s voice telling her that if she didn’t do it now, she would lose her chance–or something like that.”
His account was echoed later by outside medical experts. A women’s health psychiatrist told CNN she “100%” believes Clancy experienced postpartum psychosis and noted that women with the condition may not recognize they have a problem as they are disconnected from reality.
Ryan Fox, a senior communications major, said the trial exposed him to the reality of how women and postpartum mental health are regarded in the justice system.
"My first initial reaction was that it was horrible, how someone could do that to their own kids," Fox said. "As I learned more about the case, I didn't necessarily understand her actions, but I know how hard postpartum depression can be on a woman … it definitely did open my eyes up a little bit. I still thought it was a heinous action, but because it was someone who struggled with postpartum depression, it gave me a different view of things."
Fox argued that the medical system, not just Clancy, bore responsibility, noting her multiple attempts to seek medical help
"She did reach out for help and she did express signs of…mental struggles,” Fox said, “and the fact that she wasn't taken seriously and given the help that she needed, I think it…shows how the healthcare system failed her.”
Fox also raised the question of gender, arguing the case might have unfolded differently with a father as the defendant.
"A lot of people are bringing up that if it was a man, it would be a completely different story," he said. "Now that postpartum depression is coming in, and now that insanity is being ruled, it's kind of shaking up the entire case."
After reviewing the case, Fox said postpartum depression needs to be handled more carefully in the justice system.
“As a man, that's something that I'll never have to go through, and I'll never really understand what it's like to be a woman with postpartum depression,” Fox said. “I think that it's worth evaluating and paying close attention to, because I feel like it's more of a slippery slope when gender is put in things."
Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, a Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer, told jurors in closing arguments that Clancy repeatedly sought help from the medical system but was overmedicated and misdiagnosed.
Court records reviewed by The Boston Globe show Clancy was prescribed 13 different psychiatric medications across 30 individual prescriptions from five clinicians spanning two hospitals in the four months leading up to the killings. Some of these medications include antidepressants such as Zoloft and Prozac, the antipsychotic Seroquel, the sedative Benadryl, two benzodiazepines in the form of Ativan and Klonopin, and the mood stabilizer Lamictal.
Reddington accused prosecutors of compounding Clancy’s suffering by questioning the seriousness of her suicide attempt and scrutinizing her medical records.
"This young lady did nothing wrong in her life. She was a nurse, a daughter, a wife and a darn good mother," Reddington said.
Patrick and Lindsay Clancy have both filed separate malpractice lawsuits against Clancy's former mental health providers, arguing that clinicians failed to diagnose bipolar disorder with postpartum onset and instead prescribed a combination of medications that worsened her condition.
The defense also called forensic psychologist Paul Zeizel, who testified Clancy was experiencing postpartum psychosis, and emphasized testimony from forensic psychiatrist Dr. Phillip Resnick, who concluded Clancy was psychotic at the time of the killings.
Emily Castillo, a senior criminal justice major, said the evidence surrounding Clancy’s mental health and the way it was handled has challenged her understanding of the justice system.
“Mrs. Clancy did appear to be suffering from a mental illness. She tried to reach out for help and the system failed her,” Castillo said.“However, I believe this doesn't give her the right to not be brought to justice; three innocent lives were lost. What matters, in my opinion, are the children who, at the end of the day, are still victims.”
Castillo said she couldn’t fathom that a mother could harm or murder her own children, but as she looked into the evidence, she came to believe that Clancy was guilty
”The most important legal issue in this case is criminal responsibility,” Castillo said. “[Clancy] claims that one of the causes of her going down the horrible path that she took was postpartum depression, which can interfere with a person's state of mind and not being able to understand right from wrong.”
As a future professional in the criminal justice field, evidence of mental illness alone was not enough to convince Castillo that Clancy should be relieved of criminal responsibility.
“The defense kept pushing that she suffered from mental illness, all the hallucinations and medications are what pushed her,” Castillo said. “In my opinion, mental illness alone isn't strong enough to prove her innocence.”
Castillo was more persuaded by the prosecution’s evidence, particularly Clancy’s phone records and suicide attempt.
“Out of all the evidence, the suicide attempt was the most [interesting] piece to me,” Castillo said. “Out of all the ways she could have killed herself, she did [it in] the way that survival was possible.”
Reflecting on the high-profile case, Bridget Lawrence, a criminal justice professor at SHU, said the law should determine criminal responsibility, rather than morality or public opinion.
"A crime is determined by the written letter of the law," Lawrence said. "Whether or not you're criminally responsible is based on the letter of the law. Is it a written statute that you violated? It has nothing to do with morality, values or opinion. It has to be a written law that is violated."
Lawrence said an insanity defense is rarely successful and typically requires a documented psychiatric history predating the crime.
“In New Jersey, a defendant must secure testimony from a doctor or expert if they want to use an insane or diminished capacity defense,” she said. “This defense requires a prior documented history for this claim. Insanity defenses are rarely used. It is invoked in less than 1% of cases.”
Lawrence also pushed back on a common misconception surrounding an insanity defense, emphasizing that a defendant can acknowledge committing an act while arguing that they were not legally responsible for it.
"People think that they're going to alleviate [the defendant] from the responsibility of the crime, and not have any responsibility for doing it, if they say they're mentally ill. That is not the case," Lawrence said. "In fact, in this instance, she admitted to killing her children; she's admitting her responsibility for it. A defendant who is deemed to be legally insane at the time of an offense is not held criminally responsible and is committed to a psychiatric hospital, often for years or months. They are responsible for the act but not criminally.”
Lawrence noted that split verdicts–juries rejecting an insanity defense but agreeing to manslaughter rather than murder–are common. In Clancy’s case, however, this did not happen.
Lawrence attributed the deadlock less to unclear evidence than to differing interpretations of the evidence, saying the insanity defense drove the deadlock.
"I think that the defense counsel and prosecutors both did a great job. I think the evidence was clear. She, as I said, already admitted to this,” Lawrence said. “They just could not determine the insanity part of it, the nuances of that insanity defense."
Lawrence urged students to research high-profile cases like Clancy’s before forming an opinion, considering the many judicial factors that can influence a case.
"Students should view various sources of information to make informed decisions regarding legal cases and all matters," Lawrence said. "Utilize legal websites, government agencies, digital and social media, 24-hour news feeds, and traditional media along with social media."
The panel deliberated for roughly a week after a six-week trial that heard testimony from more than 70 witnesses. Sullivan set a Sept. 29 hearing to determine next steps; the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office has not said whether it will seek a retrial.
With no retrial date set, Clancy remains held at a state psychiatric hospital, where she has been since shortly after the killings. Legal analysts have said prosecutors could pursue a new trial, offer to downgrade the charges, or negotiate a plea to not guilty by reason of insanity, which would result in Clancy's indefinite civil commitment rather than a criminal sentence. A civil commitment would admit Clancy to a treatment facility or a supervised outpatient program.
The malpractice lawsuits filed by Lindsay and Patrick Clancy against her former providers remain pending separately in Norfolk Superior Court.
Elizabeth Maria Churchill is the assistant editor of The Setonian’s News section. She can be reached at elizabethmaria.churchill@student.shu.edu.
