Massachusetts murder defendants who are found not guilty by reason of insanity are typically committed to medical facilities for many years to avoid endangering others. But if Lindsay Clancy's defense succeeds, local defense lawyers told USA TODAY she may not fit that typical mold, based on the details revealed at her trial.
A jury is deliberating Clancy's fate after she admitted to mental health experts that she killed her three small children, 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan. Clancy's defense lawyer, Kevin Reddington, has argued that she suffered from an episode of postpartum psychosis that fateful January 2023 evening, and was unable to appreciate what she was doing was wrong or stop herself from doing it.
The case
has gripped television and online trial watchers after several witnesses testified that Clancy was a good and devoted mother for years before her mental health deteriorated after giving birth to her third child. She told mental health experts she heard a voice commanding her to kill the children. She killed them, then jumped out of a window, leaving her paralyzed.
While Clancy would avoid going to prison if she is found not guilty as a result of a mental disease or defect – Massachusetts' version of the insanity defense – that wouldn't mean she would go scot-free. Instead, prosecutors can petition a court to commit her to a medical facility for an initial period of six months.
That's practically certain to happen, and would probably be followed by recommitting Clancy, according to Keith Halpern, a Massachusetts defense lawyer who estimated he has worked on two or three dozen criminal cases involving a potential mental illness.
"There's never been anyone in Massachusetts found not guilty of murder by reason of mental illness who got released, not just at six months, but in less than years," Halpern said.
Massachusetts law states that a person committed after a successful insanity defense can be recommitted over and over again, each time for a one-year period.
Judge William Sullivan, who is overseeing the Clancy trial, made clear to jurors that provision applies if Clancy is a danger to others or if she is a danger to herself.
"If the court concludes that the defendant is mentally ill and that her discharge would create a substantial likelihood of serious harm to herself or others, then the court will grant the petition and commit the defendant to a proper mental health facility" or to a hospital, Sullivan said.
Mental health experts have testified that Clancy is currently staying at a hospital under suicide-prevention precautions and feels she has lost the most important things in her life – in particular, her children and her now-remarried former husband.
"I would think that the more salient issue with respect to her would be self-harm," said Jack Cunha, a Massachusetts defense lawyer and former president of the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense.
Assessing Clancy's mental condition
Halpern said the shortest time period of commitment in a murder case he's handled was eight years, but that was "unusual." Such clients typically stay committed for 10 years or more. Halpern had one client who was still committed in his 80s, after being found not guilty of murder at the age of 19.
However, Clancy's situation could be different, given her lawyer has alleged she was suffering from postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis – conditions that are specific to the time period after a woman gives birth.
"The chances of her to get out in a shorter period of time are better than for somebody who's got a psychotic disorder based on something other than a postpartum situation," Halpern said.
Clancy's ex-husband, Patrick Clancy, and mother, Paula Musgrove, both testified that she told them weeks before that she had thoughts of harming the children. But no one at the trial has testified that Clancy has ever been violent toward another person, apart from the evening she attacked her kids.
It's possible, as Clancy's defense lawyer has argued, that Clancy's violence was tied to her having given birth eight months before, and to the medications she was prescribed as her mental health deteriorated. But with those conditions years in the past, mental health professionals could conclude the childless former mother is no longer a threat to others.
Still, multiple mental health experts have suggested at the trial that Clancy may still be a danger to herself.
Dr. Kirk Heilbrun, a forensic psychologist hired by the prosecution who evaluated Clancy in April, said she was at a high risk of suicide in 2023 and remains at risk today. Heilbrun said Clancy has been on the highest level of suicide precautions since she was transferred to the state-run Tewksbury Hospital.
"This is a very long time to be on that kind of precautions," he said.
Dr. Avram Mack, a forensic psychiatrist also hired by the prosecution, testified that when he evaluated Clancy along with Heilbrun, she described feeling depressed and pointed to several stressors, including the deaths of her children, her separation from her former husband, and her physical injuries. He described her daily life at Tewksbury, saying she spent most of her time in bed, uninterested in physical therapy, the food, or her personal hygiene.
"She described feeling, I'm not sure the exact terms she used, but feeling miserable, not wanting to be alive," Mack said.
Those details suggest mental health professionals may conclude Clancy needs to be committed to avoid harming herself.
"Her problem is whether or not she's suicidal," Halpern added. "And if they can control that, then I think there's a good argument that she could get out at some point."
Why Clancy's release could involve another court battle
If mental health professionals did determine Clancy was no longer a danger to herself or others, they wouldn't get the final say. A court would still need to determine whether to release her, and the prosecution would have the right to challenge her potential release.
Cunha said the district attorney's office in Plymouth County, Massachusetts, where Clancy is being tried, has been aggressive in prosecuting her case, and he would expect it to continue fighting against her release.
"Plymouth County is a maximum-prosecution jurisdiction," Cunha said. "Knowing this district attorney, I'm sure that they would do everything they can to keep her there as long as they can."
The district attorney's office didn't immediately respond to USA TODAY's request for comment.
In addition to whatever fight the prosecution puts up, in a case that has garnered so much attention already, there will likely be some public pressure placed on the judge, Cunha said.
Sullivan told jurors before they began deliberating that, if they side with her insanity defense, it would be up to him to determine whether she's still dangerous and that, with periodic reviews, he or another judge could keep her committed for the rest of her life.
"The best thing I can say about that is that I think Judge Sullivan is a courageous jurist. He's not afraid of the truth," Cunha said.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: A 'not guilty' verdict won't free Lindsay Clancy
