The Key Evidence in the Lindsey Clancy Trial—and How Both Sides May Use It

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: The Lindsay Clancy story is about to unfold. Hang in there for a minute, and I'll tell you what to look for tomorrow in opening statements. Hi, Tony DeWitt here. I am a retired Missouri attorney who has now unretired so that I can bring you some commentary on trials and that sort of thing. Because I deal generally with legal topics, I'm not offering any legal advice, and I'm not intending to form any lawyer-client relationships with any of you. I'm simply presenting some information. I am a content creator. I am not currently practicing law, although I do maintain my license in the state of Missouri. This is a trial channel, and today we're discussing a trial. In fact, this is what we're discussing today. As of Thursday, July 23rd, reports indicated that 17 of the required 18 jurors have already been seated, leaving one final juror to be selected today. Opening statements then could begin Friday, July 24th, if the selection is completed. So today we're looking at what to expect from the opening statements. The Lindsey Clancy opening statements will not be a contest over who killed these three children. Both sides already know the answer to that question. The real fight will be over what was happening inside a very dark place, Lindsey Clancy's mind, and whether the Commonwealth can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she remained criminally responsible under the model penal code tests. The Commonwealth's opening will probably make two arguments at once. Lindsey Clancy deliberately planned and carried out three killings, and, two, whatever psychiatric illness she had, she still possessed enough capacity to understand what she was doing and control her actions. The defense, on the other hand, will probably concede that Lindsey caused the children's death. It is their task to persuade jurors that planning, speaking coherently, and performing ordinary tasks do not necessarily disprove psychosis, and that the Commonwealth cannot prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt. And that distinction is the entire trial. What the Commonwealth is likely to say. This was not an impulsive act. I expect the prosecutor to begin with Cora, Dawson, and Callan, describing them individually before moving into a detailed timeline. You always want to get the victims up front and center. There'll be cute little photographs of all three of those children, and the idea will be to tug at the juror's heartstrings. The Commonwealth will likely contrast the apparently ordinary family day with what it says Lindsey was quietly arranging. Publicly described evidence includes a pediatric appointment that morning, Lindsey playing in the snow with the kids, photographs and messages sent to family, internet searches concerning Miralax and the 3V restaurant, an Apple map search calculating travel between the Clancy home and the restaurant, a call to Cora, a call to CVS about children's medication, a takeout order placed shortly before Patrick left, and directions for Patrick to visit both C.V.S. and 3V. The prosecution's interpretation will be that these were not merely family errands. They were a method of creating a predictable period during which Lindsey could be alone with the children. Now, the defense is going to have a reaction to that. The defense will likely call this ordinary household behavior being reinterpreted through the lens of hindsight as evidence of intent. Who hasn't looked up how to get to a particular place using Apple Maps? Who hasn't called ahead to get their order ready? Those are the things that the defense is going to be saying. Looking up a restaurant, ordering food, calling a pharmacy and asking a spouse to collect medication are not inherently evidence of murder. They're evidence of a lot of other things, but they're not necessarily evidence of murder. The defense may argue that none of those acts identifies a murder method or explicitly reveals the plan to kill. Now, if she told Patrick, "Hey, Patrick, why don't you pick up some hydrogen cyanide at the drugstore? Yeah, maybe some strychnine, too, while you're at it. Oh, I know, tarot ant poison." She didn't do that. So the defense may argue that none of those acts identifies a murder method. And that's exactly what I'd say if I was defending. The critical question will be whether the Apple Maps evidence shows unusual calculation or simply routine trip planning. The prosecution is going to say she calculated exactly how much time she had. The prosecution is likely to place particular emphasis on timing. Patrick reportedly left at approximately 5:10 p.m. He was at CVS around 5:32. Lindsay called him back approximately one minute after missing his call and discussed the medication with him. He then went to the restaurant and returned home shortly after 6:00. The Commonwealth may very well argue that Lindsay knew where Patrick was, knew how long his errands should take, could communicate coherently during the relevant period, used those errands to obtain privacy, completed several separate acts before he returned, and that gives the prosecution a powerful phrase for its opening. She did not lose control. She created control. Well, what's the defense reaction going to be to that? The defense will probably say that coherent conduct is not the same thing as legal sanity. A person experiencing psychosis can still use a telephone. They can still answer a question. They can complete a familiar task. They can appear outwardly calm. Psychiatric symptoms can fluctuate, and some seriously ill people retain pockets of organized behavior. The defense will argue that the jury must determine what was happening internally, not whether Lindsay could speak normally for a few seconds. The defense may also emphasize that the legal question is not whether she could perform any particular rational act. It's whether mental disease deprived her of substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct or conform her conduct to the requirements of the law. These were three separate deliberate acts. That's what the prosecution is going to say. The exercise bans may be the Commonwealth's most important physical evidence. Now, I'm not going to describe the use of the exercise bans here because I just think it doesn't—we'll wait for the evidence to come in and see what happens, but I think that—I think that could be upsetting to people, so I'm not going to go through a great deal of it right now. But that will be the key piece of evidence because it does turn out to be the murder weapon. Prosecutors are going to make allegations about where the bans were placed and how they were removed. And they're going to say that the placement and the manner in which they were done argue for a planned, intentional killing. The prosecution will probably avoid portraying this as one uncontrolled explosion of anger. Instead, it may describe three children, three bands, separate locations or positions, a sequence requiring timing, and opportunities to stop between each child. The emotional and legal message will be that each additional act demonstrates deliberation. The defense reaction. The defense has several possible reactions, really. First, it may argue that the repetition does not disprove psychosis. A person acting under a fixed delusion, or command hallucination, where a voice tells them to do something, for example, may very well act methodically because the delusion itself supplies a terrible form of internal logic. Second, the defense may dispute what can reliably be inferred from the bands. Their positions when Patrick found the children may not reveal precisely how they were originally applied. Third, the defense may argue that the prosecution is using the horrifying nature of the acts as a substitute for proving Lindsey's metal capacity at that particular time. And you can look for the prosecution to do exactly that. Well, the prosecution is next going to say she placed the children downstairs and concealed what happened. When Patrick returned, he reportedly found an unusually quiet house, a locked bedroom door, blood near an open second-story window, and Lindsey injured outside. During the emergency call, Patrick asked where the children were, and Lindsey directed him to the basement. He then found them and shouted that she had killed them. The Commonwealth may use those facts to argue consciousness of wrongdoing. The children were moved or left in the basement. A door was locked. Lindsey knew where they were. She understood Patrick's question. She could communicate the answer. She acted only after completing all three killings. A 911 recording will likely be among the most emotionally powerful evidence pieces of the entire presentation. The judge has allowed it to be presented to the jury. What will the defense reaction be? Well, the defense will probably argue that Lindsey's conduct after the killings is at least as consistent with a catastrophic psychiatric episode as it is with an attempt to escape justice. Her jump from the window, severe injuries, and alleged effort to die can be presented as part of the same psychotic episode. Directing Patrick to the children may also undermine a concealment theory. She did not send him elsewhere or pretend they were missing. The defense will likely say, in substance, this was not a calculated escape. It was the final stage of a psychotic plan in which she believed the children had to die before she killed herself. The Commonwealth is going to come back and say that contemporaneous evidence does not show psychosis. And this could be the most important portion of their opening. The prosecution is likely to distinguish between anxiety or depression and a psychiatric diagnosis. Psychosis. Legal lack of criminal responsibility. Reports indicate that prosecutors have pointed to an initial diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder and to communications made near the time of the killings that did not expressly describe hallucinations. The Commonwealth is also challenged when Lindsey first reported the alleged command hallucination, contending it was described after involvement by the defense team. The prosecutor may tell jurors to pay particular attention to what Lindsey told providers before January 24th. In other words, what did Lindsey say to her doctors and the people taking care of her before the date of the killings? Whether she reported voices or delusions, what Patrick observed, what hospital personnel documented, whether symptoms intensified in later accounts, whether her actions were consistent with her symptoms that she later described. And what's the defense reaction going to be? Well, the defense will argue that psychiatric illness is not measured by whether a patient might use the right diagnostic vocabulary. People may conceal frightening thoughts because of shame, fear, confusion, or concern that their children will be taken away. A patient may also be misdiagnosed or inadequately assessed. The defense says Lindsey experienced severe postpartum psychiatric illness, received numerous medications, underwent inpatient and outpatient treatment, and continued deteriorating despite seeking help. The defense must nevertheless answer a very difficult question. Why is the most dramatic symptom, the alleged voice commanding the killings, not plainly documented before the deaths? I would watch closely to see whether defense counsel addresses that problem directly in opening or tries to defer it until expert testimony. Well, what's the Commonwealth going to say? The Commonwealth may well preview Lindsey's journals, phone data, searches, and notes. Public reporting has described a search involving the question, Can you treat a sociopath? A journal material that prosecutors say expressed resentment or emotional detachment. The state may present this as evidence of insight into her own condition, rather than evidence of a psychotic break. What's the defense reaction going to be? They'll likely insist that isolated searches and journal phrases are dangerously easy to misunderstand, and that they lack context. Questions I would expect the defense to raise include: Was sociopath a reference to Lindsey herself? Was she searching because she feared what was happening to her? What entries appeared immediately before and after the quoted language? Context. Did she also write about loving the children, seeking treatment, or fearing for their safety? Are prosecutors selecting a few phrases from a much larger psychiatric record? Context will matter enormously. A search can be evidence of a plan, evidence of illness, or evidence of someone desperately trying To understand very frightening thoughts, thoughts they can't control. Well, the state is going to come back and they're going to say: Mental illness is not an excuse. The Commonwealth is going to likely tell jurors that it doesn't need to prove Lindsey was perfectly healthy. That would be strategically sound to make that concession. The prosecution can acknowledge anxiety, depression, medication, hospitalization, even significant psychiatric symptoms, while maintaining that Lindsey remained criminally responsible. Massachusetts requires the Commonwealth, once the issue has been properly raised, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant retains substantial capacity, both to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct, and to conform her conduct to the law. Substantial capacity, not minimal capacity, not passing capacity, not episodic capacity. The state's evidence of planning, conversation, sequencing, opportunity, and post-event conduct will be offered not merely to prove intent, but to prove those legal capacities. And what's the defense reaction going to be? The defense should tell jurors that the state is attempting to answer a medical and legal question with a stopwatch. Planning can prove premeditation in an ordinary murder case, but here, the defense will argue that the planning itself may have occurred within a delusional system. The defense's most important sentence may be: The question is not whether her actions had a sequence. The question is whether a diseased mind controlled that sequence. What I expect from the defense opening statement? A candid concession. The defense is unlikely to contest that Lindsey caused the deaths. The counsel has previously indicated a willingness to narrow or stipulate to her involvement. That allows the defendants to establish credibility immediately. We're not going to ask you to pretend Lindsey Clancy didn't do this. We're going to ask you to determine whether she was criminally responsible when she did do it. A direct concession would keep jurors focused on the actual issue, rather than the horror and making them wait through weeks of testimony to learn what everyone already agrees happened. Medical chronology: The defense needs more than a medication list. I expect counsel to describe a progression involving childbirth, insomnia, anxiety, intrusive thoughts, repeated efforts to obtain treatment, psychiatric hospitalization, changing diagnoses, and numerous prescriptions. Reports describe the defense as blaming severe postpartum illness, potentially compounded by extensive medication treatment, and perhaps medication treatment that wasn't directed at what the problem really was. The defense has to connect each step back to January 24th, merely proving that Lindsey had been unwell will not satisfy the legal test. The alleged command hallucination. The defense says that Lindsey heard a voice telling her that this was her final opportunity to kill the children and then herself, and that the children would suffer if she died without them. That allegation provides the defense with an explanation for conduct that otherwise looks very purposeful. Why she needed Patrick to leave. Why all three children were targeted. Why she then went out the window. Why the acts may have appeared planned. Why she believed the killings and her own death belonged together. But this is also a vulnerability. The commonwealth is going to challenge the timing, the reliability, and the corroboration of that account. Patrick Clancy. Patrick could be the most important non-expert witness for both sides. The commonwealth is going to use him to establish the timeline, Lindsey's demeanor on the telephone, the errands, the discovery, and the condition of the children in the exercise bands. The defense may use him to describe Lindsey's deterioration, treatment efforts, unusual fears, insomnia, medication changes, and the family's attempts to obtain help for her. His public support for Lindsey may also complicate the prosecution's effort to present her as cold or resentful. And those of you who have looked on during some of this pre-trial work have seen her sit there stone-faced. That's likely to work against her. The jury will likely scrutinize whether Patrick's observations support psychosis at the crucial time or merely anxiety and depression. Here are the seven things I would suggest you watch for: 1. Does the commonwealth concede genuine mental illness? A carefully framed concession could strengthen its argument that illness existed but did not eliminate responsibility. 2. Does the commonwealth explain the legal significance of planning? Planning proves more only if the prosecutor connects it to appreciation of wrongfulness and capacity for self-control. 3. Which alleged act of planning is the strongest? The Apple Maps search may well matter more than the restaurant order or pharmacy call because it can be portrayed as calculating Patrick's absence and the time he'll be gone. 4. Which legal route does the defense emphasize? Was Lindsey unable to appreciate wrongfulness, unable to control herself, or both? The defense should not leave that vague. 5. Does the defense explain the delayed hallucination report? Avoiding that issue could allow the prosecution to define it first. You never want the other guy to bring up your weakest point first. 6. How does each side characterize the window jump? The state may portray it as a consciousness of guilt. The defense will portray it as completion of a psychotic murder-suicide command. 7. Do lawyers distinguish evidence from emotion? The 911 recording and the deaths of the three kids will be overwhelming. 8. Do lawyers must still decide the precise question about Lindsey's mental health capacity. 9. And here's the test for you tomorrow. 9. At the end of each opening statement, ask yourself whether each attorney has actually addressed the legal issue issues or simply told a more powerful and emotional story to the jury. 9. That may be the best indicator of where we're going. 10. That's what I have for you today. 10. Thank you so much for being here. 10. Catch me down here tomorrow. 10. Thanks for watching my video. 10. I really appreciate it. 11. And today, as you go about your business, would you try to do just one kind thing for somebody? It doesn't have to be a big thing. You can open a door for somebody who has their arms full. 11. You could buy somebody a Coke. 12. You could let the manager know when somebody did a really good job for you at the grocery store or at Walmart or someplace else. There are all kinds of things we can do to make people's lives better. And a lot of times, people will always remember to go to the manager and complain. They very seldom remember to go to the manager and say, "Hey, you know that guy over there in produce is top notch." And I think it's really important to do that because I want to make the world a better place. I know you're here probably because you want to make the world a better place. So let's do that. 11. Now let's be respectful of one another. And thank God we live in the greatest country in the free world. 12. I do think that the good folks at YouTube have a few things they want to show you up here that you might be interested in. And if you are, I'd appreciate you clicking. Thanks. Have a great day.