LINDSAY CLANCY VERDICT BOMBSHELL: Expert Says M-ur...

LINDSAY CLANCY VERDICT BOMBSHELL: Expert Says M-urd-er Conviction May Be Nearly Impossible

A legal analyst and former federal prosecutor predicts either an acquittal or a hung jury for Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother who is on trial for killing her three young children.

Clancy, 36, is charged with murdering her children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and 8-month-old Callan, by strangling them with exercise bands at their Duxbury, Mass., home in January 2023. She then jumped from a second-story window in an apparent suicide attempt, leaving her paralyzed from the waist down.

The central dispute at trial was whether Clancy is criminally responsible for the killings. Prosecutors have argued she acted intentionally and knowingly, while her defense has said she was overmedicated and suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time and is therefore not criminally responsible.

The trial, which has been held in Plymouth County Superior Court, has drawn national attention and sparked discussion about postpartum mental health and the treatment of women experiencing psychiatric crises.

“I don’t think there is any real possibility that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is going to be able to get a guilty verdict in this case,” legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani tells PEOPLE.

“In Massachusetts, the burden is on the prosecution to prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt,” he adds. “In Massachusetts, the prosecution has to prove that Lindsay Clancy is not insane. So, if there is any reasonable doubt that Lindsey Clancy is insane, the jurors have to acquit.”

Lindsay Clancy.Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images

Our new app is here! Free, fun and full of exclusives. Scan to download now!

“In every state, in every courtroom in this country, there’s a jury instruction that says that if there are two reasonable interpretations of the evidence, you have to side with the defense,” Rahmani adds. “That’s a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution’s version of the evidence is reasonable and the defense’s is unreasonable, then that is not reasonable doubt. In my opinion, there’s multiple reasonable interpretations of the evidence. I sense that the defense is getting more confident and the prosecution is getting more frustrated, because they see what I’m seeing: that there’s a very real possibility that there’s some reasonable doubt here and that the jury will either acquit or hang.”

Want to keep up with the latest crime coverage? Sign up for PEOPLE’s free True Crime newsletter for breaking crime news, ongoing trial coverage and details of intriguing unsolved cases.

Addressing the possibility of a hung jury, Rahmani believes there may be ‘”some people that want to hold someone responsible for these three kids. It’s not going to be 10 to 11-1 in favor of conviction. There might be some holdouts, a handful that dig in their heels and say, ‘Listen, I’m not going to let this woman not face responsibility for killing [her] kids.’ But I would expect them to be in the minority.”

Related Stories

Lindsay Clancy’s Lawyer Walks Away After Reporter Asks if the ‘Children Are Being Forgotten’

Psychologist Testifies About Lindsay Clancy’s First Words to Husband — and, Later, Defense Calls for Mistrial

Rahmani says Massachusetts has a very broad definition of insanity.

“It’s one of the best states to present an insanity defense,” he says. “And there are two ways to potentially be insane in Massachusetts. One way to get there is if you don’t understand right from wrong. And the other way to get there is if you can’t follow the law.”

Cora, Dawson and Callan.The Heard Foundation/Instagram

Rahmani points to defense witnesses, including a psychologist and hospital chaplain, who testified that Clancy later reported hearing a voice in her head at the time of the killings telling her to kill her children and herself.

“That’s that first prong of the insanity defense, not knowing right from wrong,” he says.

However, Rahmani notes that insanity defenses succeed in only a small percentage of cases. He says Clancy’s case may be different because of her documented mental health history — including psychiatric treatment, a recent inpatient stay and the numerous medications she had been prescribed.

Rahmani says another unusual aspect of the case, compared to most cases involving insanity defenses, is Clancy’s suicide attempt.

“You have a murder defendant who attempted suicide multiple ways: by slashing her wrists and neck and throwing herself head-first out of the second-story window, and is paralyzed,” he says. “That is not something that you typically see in insanity cases.”

Lastly, Rahmani points to statements Clancy allegedly made to family members before and after the killings that he says support the defense’s claims of psychosis and hallucinations.

“When you have those types of statements from the defendant immediately before and immediately after a crime is committed, that helps get inside the defendant’s head,” he says.

Closing arguments in the closely watched trial are expected to start this week.

If you or someone you know is struggling with mental health challenges, emotional distress, substance use problems, or just needs to talk, call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org 24/7.