The Lindsay Clancy possibilities
In discussions of the Lindsay Clancy case, I’ve seen a lot of misunderstanding of psychosis, especially the fact that in some instances a person can plan and function while under the sway of psychosis.
The word “insanity” is actually fairly meaningless in this case, as well. It’s not the legal standard by which Clancy might be found to have had reduced criminal responsibility. I think many people are letting their everyday ideas about “insanity” get in the way of understanding the relevant legal standard in Massachusetts:
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 the Massachusetts Court System. …
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.”
There’s also this:
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.”
That’s the more basic question with Clancy: she would not only have to have known right from wrong at the time (I think she probably did know right from wrong) but she would also have to have been able to “conform her conduct” to the law despite having a mental disease or defect. That last part is the real question: could she or couldn’t she conform her conduct to the law? In order for jurors to find that she could conform her conduct to the law, it would have to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.. But I think there clearly was reasonable doubt on that score, and/or it’s certainly understandable that someone could in good faith find reasonable doubt.
Nor do we know exactly what the eleven jurors in this case had agreed on for a verdict and what the lone holdout wanted. There were many possibilities for the agreed-on verdict of the eleven, but we can be pretty sure it wasn’t murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence. Of the other possibilities:
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 manslaughter, which carries a 20-year maximum sentence.
If she is ever 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.
I think it most likely that the verdict the eleven voted for was “not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility,” and the penalty would be subsequent commitment, and that Clancy would probably end up being confined for a very very long time.
Can we assume we know what the single holdout wanted? Almost certainly it wasn’t “not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility.” But I wouldn’t assume it was “guilty of murder” either, although many people are assuming that. However, it could have been “guilty of second-degree murder” or “guilty of manslaughter.” We simply don’t know; I wonder if we’ll ever know.
@ Neo > “I wonder if we’ll ever know”
We will as soon as one of the jurors “anonymously” tells somebody.
After which the holdout will be doxxed, harassed, and possibly assaulted.
My problem is with the formulation of one option as “not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility,” which gives a connotation that just doesn’t seem right to laypersons.
I would prefer a formula of “guilty but lacking criminal responsibility,” although with the same penalties as the former.
That seems IMO to express the Clancy situation more precisely.
The fact that Clamncy jumped out of a second-story window after strangling in sequence her three children indicates to me she understood criminal responsibility. The jump is an act driven by guilt.
The problem is that the “psychosis” diagnosis (incredibly rare even four weeks post partum, much less a *year* plus) is so nebulous that a not guilty verdict here becomes a cover for all sorts of future criminal activity.
It’s as dangerous as it is far-fetched.
Let’s hold her accountable.
“prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense.”
And
“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.”
I cannot see how either of these two conditions can be met years after the offense is committed.
Oh, we’ll know. Rumors are out there about doxxing the one holdout juror already. And perhaps one of the eleven will feel strongly enough to make a statement as well.
There are some things legal commentators have mentioned that seem unusual about the judge’s actions. Usually judges outline the various possible verdicts and how they are defined, but not what the possible sentences are for each. This judge included the sentencing numbers, possibly influencing the jurors’ decision on facts.
Also, he added manslaughter at the end. Manslaughter? Seriously?
Then there is this, from experienced attorney John Hinderaker at Power Line.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/09/the-clancy-trial-cultural-watershed-legal-farce.php
So, if you want to get rid of your Mother-in-Law, take a family vacation to Cape Cod, bump her off and say you were nuts.
I mean the brain dead woman who runs Massachusetts just signed legislation saying you can kill your baby up until the moment of birth so why stop there exactly.
Sorry for the cynicism but having gone to grammar school in Mass, high school in RI and college and grad school in Mass and owning property for years on Cape Cod, I find the majority of women of that state nutso.
Then there is this: “More than half (around 56%) of young white liberal women aged 18–29 report having received a mental health condition diagnosis.”
Guess I’m right. Lucky for Clancy she had a jury of her peers, nutso women.
Cicero. That jump could be an admission of guilt or, for various reasons having to do with physics and body positions, an attempt to fake suicide to demonstrate mental illness.
The Babylon Bee:
“State Of Massachusetts Declared Incompetent By Reason Of Insanity.”
Just the fact that she killed those children after she sent the husband out on errands speaks to her guilt.