Lindsay Clancy trial — Analyzing the case so far and the judge's instructions to jurors

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Tonight, a change in schedule after a tough week of testimony. [00:00:07] Speaker 2: What about injuries? [00:00:09] Speaker 3: I'm going to take a break this time. [00:00:11] Speaker 1: The jury gets a long weekend, but not before the judge gave them special instructions. You have to still keep an open mind. [00:00:19] Speaker 4: You've heard a lot of evidence, but you haven't heard all the evidence. [00:00:23] Speaker 1: Why those guidelines caught our attention, plus what are the potential outcomes of this case? We explore the possibilities with our legal panel. Commonwealth Confidential, the Lindsay Clancy trial starts right now. [00:00:39] Speaker 5: The prosecution in the Lindsay Clancy trial is preparing to wrap up its case. They've called dozens of witnesses hoping to prove the Duxbury mother is guilty of first-degree murder in the deaths of her three children. Good evening, everyone. I'm Jason Monaghan. [00:00:53] Speaker 6: And I'm Glenn Jones. NBC10's John Maroney takes a look at the prosecution's case so far. [00:00:59] Speaker 7: Shannon Buckingham is one of the prosecutors trying to convict Lindsay Clancy of planning and killing her three children. The other is Jennifer Sprague. [00:01:12] Speaker 8: They spent a lot of time trying to inflame the passion of the jury and really not putting forward a cohesive case as to first-degree murder. [00:01:23] Speaker 7: The Duxbury mother has pleaded not guilty to three counts of first-degree murder, saying she's not criminally responsible because she suffered from postpartum psychosis. [00:01:32] Speaker 9: The prosecution was indeed effective in making the point that none of the caregivers realized that she was suffering from a psychosis. [00:01:41] Speaker 7: Defense attorney Peter Ellican says the charges brought by district attorney Tim Cruz would be difficult for any prosecutor to prove. [00:01:49] Speaker 9: The number of people in the criminal justice field that I've spoken to across the spectrum here have questioned whether this case should have been brought at all. [00:01:58] Speaker 7: The case against the 36-year-old defendant included cross-examination, suggesting she was a caring mother who harbored thoughts of suicide and tried to get help. [00:02:08] Speaker 8: All of that, I believe, helps to create that reasonable doubt that the defendant needs, and that's obviously really problematic for the government. [00:02:17] Speaker 7: And while defense attorney Kevin Reddington is the most experienced lawyer in the courtroom, NBC 10 Boston chief legal analyst Michael Coyne says prosecutors have tried a reasonably good case. [00:02:28] Speaker 8: I don't believe that the trial strategy is appropriate simply because too much time has been spent playing to the jury's sympathy and potential anger towards her. [00:02:46] Speaker 7: We understand the prosecution will present one more witness on Monday, then it will be the defense's turn to present its case. John Maroney, NBC 10 Boston. [00:02:56] Speaker 5: Joining us tonight on our panel is defense attorney Morgietta Darussier and NBC 10 courtroom insider Sue O'Connell. Thank you both for being here. No court today doesn't mean we don't have a lot to still talk about, and as John just mentioned, we expect the prosecution to wrap up come Monday, maybe with one more person on the stand. So let's take a look back at their case so far. [00:03:18] Speaker 6: And let's go all the way back to the point when the Commonwealth first presented its argument during opening statements. Take a listen. [00:03:24] Speaker 3: This was not a woman in the throes of psychosis on January 24th, 2023. This was a woman who acted intentionally, rationally and swiftly to accomplish a very specific goal: to kill. She chose to manipulate her providers, seek out the quick and easy fix when she was feeling depressed and anxious. And when she didn't get what she expected, she chose an alternate route. She sought a different doctor. She changed medications after days. She disengaged from treatment when she didn't like the plan. [00:04:00] Speaker 6: All right, Morgietta, I want your full assessment of the opening statement and how they've done so far, but I wonder if I could just quickly get you yes or no on the three main points we heard right there. Has the prosecution proven that Lindsay Clancy was not a woman in psychosis? I don't think so. And wait, stop there. Okay. Have they proven that she manipulated her caretakers and ignored their instructions? I also don't think so. And have they proven that she had a premeditated goal to murder her kids? I don't think so. Okay. Well, you can explain how you feel now, but I think we already know. [00:04:33] Speaker 2: Well, here's the thing, and I think it's pretty prevalent that the witnesses have been inconsistent. I think there have been a handful that have been thoughtful and thorough and we can follow, like, their theory, but the prosecution put on each and every single witness that they had almost available to them. And I think that's what their detriment was in their case, right? Because when you're talking about motive, you have all these other witnesses saying she was an amazing mom and she did all these things and she was wonderful and she took care of her kids. So why would she go then and kill them, right, unless she was under psychosis? Did she have moments where she took her medication outside of the doctor's recommendation? I think there was some testimony about that, but she also went for help and sought help over and over and over again and was turned away. So I think that there are a lot of inconsistencies, and I don't think they've met that burden just quite yet. And they will make a motion either Monday or Tuesday when they rest—sorry, the defense will make the motion Monday or Tuesday when they rest. But the judge is ultimately going to send this question out to the jury. But I think the strategy was a little bit disjointed in the prosecutions case. Almost like it tripped over itself in the way you're explaining it. Exactly. And I think they tried, right? And that's their job. Their job is to present a thorough case and they provided a lot of information. But as to what they were supposed to meet, I think it's really not there. And there has to be some sort of thread [00:05:55] Speaker 5: and storyline that the jurors can follow. And in that case, Sue, you've been in that courtroom every day. Now that, again, let's say the prosecution is wrapping or wrapped, it's been emotional and then there's been very dry testimony, like going through cell phone data again. Do you feel like they're engaged? Are they giving you any reaction? Yeah, they're not giving a lot of reaction, [00:06:17] Speaker 10: except then obviously the very emotional testimony that we all would expect. But they're very somber. They're very serious. They're taking this as a duty, you can tell. And this is my favorite part of jury watching where I try and guess what each of them might do. And I'm pretty good. I found that. There's definitely a few medical professionals that are either retired or active on the jury. I think the person who really hasn't, I don't want to say engaged, but hasn't physically been looking like she was engaged during all the Google and search stuff, she was leaning forward, she was writing things down. So they are taking it in. And I know this is a great part about being a defense attorney. When the defense gets up, they are relieved because they're going to get something different than this Q&A back and forth and back and forth. And they are laughing with Kevin Reddington when he does it, like he shows up with his magnifying glass up at the witness stand, or he says he can't understand some mumbo jumbo or something. Right. It's an older jury. So I think that in terms of their engagement, when he's up there, they're paying more attention. I think they are getting all of this information and they're taking a lot of notes. [00:07:23] Speaker 6: He's charming them, really. The jury was excused for the weekend on Thursday. It was a difficult day, to be sure, mainly because of Clancy's breakdown, listening to the medical examiner go through her children's autopsies. Her sobs caused two abrupt recesses. But before Judge Sullivan let the jury go for the weekend, he gave them special instructions, which caught our attention. Here's a clip. [00:07:44] Speaker 4: You have to still keep an open mind. You've heard a lot of evidence, but you haven't heard all the evidence. All right. You haven't heard the closing arguments of the attorneys. You haven't heard [00:07:55] Speaker 5: the law that you do apply. Okay. That's what caught my attention. The law that needs to be applied. What, Morgietta, is the Judge Sullivan going to highlight? I know it's long, but what's the point of what he's going to say when it comes to what they have to accomplish when they go in the jury room? [00:08:12] Speaker 2: So, here's the thing. He's actually not going to highlight anything specifically. Often in jury trial cases, the judge will read the instructions out loud, and then they'll actually get a copy of what the elements are that they have to prove or that the Commonwealth has to prove. And to Sue's point, all those note-takers, all the people who are paying attention, sometimes actually go line by line and see if there's enough evidence that they feel that the Commonwealth has met their burden in the elements that the judge is going to give them. And having that written instruction in front of them is great. The judge is supposed to be, again, a referee. He's not going to highlight one piece or another. He's going to say, here's a law. I'm going to tell it to you and give it to you on paper. Your memory controls what happens here, and you decide what [00:08:55] Speaker 5: happens. But is there a specific part of that law that he thinks will—that the jurors don't really know just yet what it is that they're trying to decide? So, he's going to give it all at the end. [00:09:07] Speaker 2: And I think what the focus is, is that the Commonwealth has to prove she was sane, period. At the time that these incidents took place, they have to prove that she was sane enough to understand and appreciate what she was doing. Yeah. Okay. [00:09:20] Speaker 6: The case has been heavy for everyone watching, especially the jury, and it seems you, our viewers, are thinking of them. Eileen from Bellingham wants to know, at the conclusion of this trial, regardless of the verdict, will counseling and psychological help be available for the jury and witnesses? Sue, [00:09:38] Speaker 10: do you know anything about this? Yes, I don't know about for the witnesses, but jurors actually have three free counseling services that the Commonwealth provides for them. They just have to call a number. During the Sarnayev trial, the judge actually left the jurors as active jurors, so they could take a longer time to access it. And, you know, again, the jurors are the heroes in this. Sure, 100%. Yeah. One of the few things our government asks us to do is jury service. So, you know, we should keep them in our thoughts and prayers all the time. [00:10:08] Speaker 5: Yep. All right. This is a viewer question, and I hesitate to even bring it up, but it is out there, and it is prevalent that there's a particular theory circulating online that we want to address. McKenna is the most recent who wrote in saying there are a lot of conspiracy theories online saying someone other than Lindsay should take the blame. Are you seeing them? What are your thoughts? Sue, we can talk about the online army that steps in. I haven't seen a single piece of evidence of anything that would intimate somebody [00:10:40] Speaker 10: else could be responsible. Kevin Reddington has been a lawyer for 40 years. He got a man who killed his wife, strangled her, the Dover doctor, manslaughter instead of murder. If there was a shred of evidence out there that anybody else had anything to do with these killings, he would not have agreed to, stipulated to what they stipulated in court, and they would be on the scene. Now, there's inconsistencies, of course, in everyone's testimony. Patrick Clancy's testimony of finding the children doesn't match the testimony of the first responders or the colors of the terrible bands that were around their necks, and the state police have made some mistakes, and the investigators have made some mistakes, but that doesn't mean that there's, that, you know, Patrick Clancy had anything to do with these murders. And as someone who lives in a household with people who are often in crisis, I, too, sit in my car at CVS. I, too, say, I'll be home in 10 minutes. Oops, they didn't have any sour cream at Star Market. I'm going to go to Stop and Shop. So the timeline situation isn't really that disturbing to me. And I said to Morjette, I ran into a woman yesterday who said to me, Patrick Clancy did it. I said, you just don't like your husband. And she laughed at me and said, yeah, that's why I suspect him. And then her husband came around the corner. So there's no evidence. [00:11:51] Speaker 5: No evidence. And that's the key in all of this. And it's also why we don't say allegedly, because she has said that she did this. That is why. All right. Morjette, Sue, thank you so much for joining us. Of course, we appreciate their insight all the time. Don't go anywhere. We are talking about the possible outcomes of this complex case after the break. But first, what do we always do? We want to take this moment, this moment to remember the young victims in this case, Cora Dawson and Kellen Clancy. Commonwealth Confidential will be right back. Morjette is back. Well, that's it. We want to welcome criminal defense attorney, Elise Hirschhorn to the panel tonight. As always, thanks for joining us, Elise. Thank you. So this question is to both of you. It's now time for the defense, for Kevin Reddington to gear up and present his side. But we've talked a lot about the fact that, you know, he's done a lot of work when he's crossed the prosecution's witnesses already. It sort of feels like we've kind of seen the playbook already. But Elise, start with you. What happens when he first gets up there? What's the first thing [00:12:56] Speaker 11: he does? I think he's going to light things on fire. I mean, I think he's given us a preview as to where he's going with things. He's asked questions that the prosecution's witnesses most times haven't been able to answer. And I think he's going to put witnesses up that are going to answer the questions. Usually the defense isn't answering questions. They're asking questions to create reasonable doubt. But he's going a little bit further here and saying, no, actually, we have a theory and I can present evidence for that. He's going to have likely an expert that actually tells us what postpartum psychosis is. All of the witnesses really only talked about postpartum depression and kind of generally about psychosis. But it's a very unique, rare, separate mental disorder, from what I understand from the experts that I work with. And he's going to put up somebody to actually explain that, to explain how somebody can be rational and functioning, I would anticipate, but also be in full psychosis and be [00:13:48] Speaker 2: capable of this. Morjeda, are you with that on as well? I agree. And I also think he's going to focus on the timelines and the medications that she was taking during this entire span, because, you know, we're really focusing on, obviously, that day and about 20 to 30 minutes, right? But we're also going to look at the entire time that she was experiencing this, because this is not just the vacuum that we're seeing this in, right? She said she also experienced this with her second child, right? It wasn't as severe as it is with the last one, but she has been experiencing this for quite some time. And I think he's going to highlight that and highlight the fact that, as Elise said, you can be perfectly functioning and normal one day and experience psychosis in a vacuum, small amount of time. [00:14:30] Speaker 6: And that's what we're really going to be looking at. We're all getting such an education here. Let's talk now about the possible outcomes of this trial. Viewers are certainly curious. Karen from Cohasset wants to know, what will happen if Clancy is found not guilty by reason of insanity? So Clancy would not go home if found not criminally responsible. She'd go to a psychiatric hospital, and then eventually she'd get the opportunity to prove to a judge she's well enough to leave. It could take years before that happens. If she's convicted, she would go to state prison, three mandatory life sentences. OK, but what about if it's a hung jury? [00:15:06] Speaker 2: AMY GOODMAN: Well, as we know, in the Karen Weed case, if there's jurors that can't come to an agreement, you know, the prosecution can try this case again. They wouldn't. We said that in the Karen Weed case, and they did. So it's their point of view to find justice and seek justice for the victims in this case, and they may very well do that. And because of the heaviness of this case, it's very possible there's a mistrial. [00:15:32] Speaker 5: But OK, so if it's a hung jury, she's at Tewksbury Hospital, so she would stay there until the next— AMY GOODMAN: She would stay there in custody, technically. She would stay in custody until [00:15:42] Speaker 11: they make the decision whether to proceed with the second jury. [00:15:44] Speaker 5: AMY GOODMAN: OK, but what if two hung juries? What if we don't get—I mean, she's admitted to killing three children, but by reason of insanity. If they can't come to an agreement— [00:15:54] Speaker 2: AMY GOODMAN: Well, they have to. That's the thing. It's a unanimous vote on guilty, not guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity. [00:16:03] Speaker 6: AMY GOODMAN: But the thing here, Elise, is the charge, if changed, could result in a bench trial, where the outcome could be more definitive. [00:16:11] Speaker 11: AMY GOODMAN: So there's also—you know, there's no limit on the amount of times a prosecution can try a case if there's a mistrial. Technically, they could try—you know, Rose Capiccio just had the sixth trial, I think what—there's a Netflix documentary. She tried and overturned a case that was, I think, on their fifth or sixth trial. And she won after, you know, 20, 30 years. So there's no limit on the amount of times they can retry, but it loses its momentum. It loses, you know, sort of public support. And I don't see them trying this over and over again. AMY GOODMAN: There's no scenario where she goes home? [00:16:44] Speaker 2: AMY GOODMAN: No, I don't think there's a scenario— AMY GOODMAN: Well, not in the near term. AMY GOODMAN: Not in the near term, right? Because here's the thing. She is still suffering, right? Let's just put that out there. She may be well and medicated through this trial, but as we can see, and probably hear from other experts, psychosis lasts for a long time, and postpartum can last for a while, right? And so we want to make sure she's also well enough for herself and going home. [00:17:05] Speaker 6: AMY GOODMAN: All right. Well, a plea agreement is still possible, technically. We'll see what happens. AMY GOODMAN: I know. You did say that. [00:17:10] Speaker 5: AMY GOODMAN: We'll see what happens. AMY GOODMAN: Yeah, it could happen on Monday. More Gietta, Elise, as always, thank you so much for joining us tonight. Thank you as well for tuning in. And just a reminder, if you are pregnant or a new mother and are struggling or in emotional crisis, the National Maternal Mental Health Hotline provides free confidential support 24/7 in English and Spanish. Call or text the hotline 1-833-852-6262. [00:17:34] Speaker 6: AMY GOODMAN: And if you have a question, we want to hear from you. Remember, we'll be back here on Monday after court resumes. We hope to see you on Commonwealth Confidential, the Lindsay Clancy trial.