Jurors in the Lindsay Clancy<\/a> trial have so far deliberated for more than 35 hours in a case partly focused on the defense’s argument that Clancy is not guilty of murder due to “lack of responsibility,” also known as the insanity defense.<\/p>\n Clancy, 36, has pleaded not guilty to three murder charges for the\u00a0deaths<\/a>\u00a0of her 5-year-old daughter Cora, 3-year-old son Dawson and infant son Callan at the family’s home in Duxbury, a Boston suburb, on Jan. 24, 2023.<\/p>\n The former nurse attempted suicide on the night of her children’s deaths, leaving her paralyzed and in a wheelchair, according to state prosecutors.<\/p>\n Lindsay Clancy watches jurors in her murder trial as Judge William Sullivan asks them to continue deliberations, in Plymouth, Massachusetts, U.S., September 2, 2026.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Greg Derr\/Pool via Reuters<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Throughout Clancy’s five-week trial, much of the\u00a0testimony centered<\/a> on whether or not Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis<\/a> when she strangled her children and attempted to take her own life, and whether she should be held criminally liable for the killings.<\/p>\n Postpartum psychosis is considered a psychiatric emergency, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Symptoms of postpartum psychosis can include delusions or hallucinations that can prompt suicidal or homicidal action, according to the ACOG.<\/p>\n Clancy and her defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, do not dispute that she killed her three children. What the jury of nine women and three men are left to decide is whether she should be held criminally responsible for the deaths of her children.<\/p>\n In the state of Massachusetts, a person may be found not guilty of a crime “if they lacked criminal responsibility when they committed the offense,” according to<\/a> the Massachusetts Court System. This is colloquially referred to as “not guilty by reason of insanity.”<\/p>\n Jurors are instructed that in order to prove a defendant is criminally responsible for their conduct, prosecutors must “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense.”<\/p>\n The second way to prove criminal responsibility, according to the state court system, is for prosecutors to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, even if the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense, the defendant nonetheless retained the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct and to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.”<\/p>\n On Thursday, about 35 hours into their deliberations, jurors in the Clancy trial were called into the courtroom, where they were polled by Judge William Sullivan, who then publicly reiterated his previous instructions to the jury about reasonable doubt — the general standard that says prosecutors must prove a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction in a criminal trial.<\/p>\n Sullivan then sent them back to the jury room to continue deliberations.<\/p>\n Later, in open court, Reddington, Clancy’s defense attorney, said there was one juror who was refusing to adhere to the judge’s instructions, who had spurned the instructions of the court. Reddington asked the judge to remove the juror who was refusing to listen.<\/p>\n “I don’t feel it is proper for me to side with one side or the other in deliberations,” Sullivan responded.<\/p>\n If Clancy is convicted of murdering her children — if she is found criminally responsible for their deaths, in other words — she faces a mandatory life sentence.\u00a0<\/p>\n Jurors also have the option to find Clancy guilty of the lesser offenses of second-degree murder, which is punishable by a life sentence with the possibility of parole, or\u00a0manslaughter, which carries a 20-year maximum sentence.<\/p>\n If she is found not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility, the court would begin the process of committing Clancy to a state psychiatric facility. Her commitment order would be subject to regular review by the court, though she could be committed to the facility indefinitely. If she is deemed no longer mentally ill and not a danger to the community, she could be released following a hearing.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0If you or someone you know is struggling with thoughts of suicide, call or text 988 or chat<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>988lifeline.org<\/em><\/a>. Free, confidential help is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You are not on your own.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n![\"American](\"https:\/\/i.abcnewsfe.com\/a\/4f9541b1-3a6b-4517-a208-ae0f726b1cff\/Lindsay-Clancy-2-rt-gmh-260903_1788439925530_hpMain.jpg?w=375 "\\"American")
<\/picture><\/div>\n<\/div>What does Massachusetts law say about criminal responsibility?<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Why is ‘reasonable doubt’ a key point in the Clancy trial?<\/strong><\/h2>\n
How could the jury’s ruling on Clancy’s criminal responsibility impact her future?<\/h2>\n