Experts Split Over Criminal Responsibility

A star defense psychiatrist told jurors Lindsay Clancy was “clearly psychotic” when her children died—while the state’s doctor said she still knew it was wrong.

Story Snapshot

Defense expert said Clancy had postpartum psychosis and lacked criminal responsibility.
Prosecution expert said records showed no psychosis and that she knew her actions were wrong.
Massachusetts law asks if a defendant could appreciate wrongfulness or follow the law.
The case highlights how mental illness and legal standards can clash in rare filicide trials.

What Defense And Prosecution Told The Jury This Week

On August 21, the defense rested after forensic psychiatrist Dr. Phillip Resnick testified. He said Clancy was “clearly psychotic,” heard a commanding voice, and could not control her actions the night her three children died in January 2023. He said she lacked criminal responsibility because of postpartum psychosis. Prosecutors answered with their own experts. They argued she was not in psychosis, and that her choices showed planning and awareness that killing was wrong.

Prosecution psychiatrist Dr. Avram Mack told jurors he found no proof of mania or psychosis in her medical records. He said she understood right from wrong at the time, which would meet the legal bar for criminal responsibility. He also said some of her behaviors looked deliberate, not psychotic. A separate prosecution psychologist described a suicide-driven motive, saying she wanted the children “with” her, not a break from reality.

The Legal Test The Jury Must Apply In Massachusetts

Jurors must answer a narrow question under Massachusetts law. Did Clancy, because of mental illness, lack the ability to know her act was wrong or to conform to the law on that night? The insanity defense turns on that test, not on whether she was suffering in general. Court coverage this week stressed that difference and how it guides the verdict choices.

That legal test often collides with medicine. A person can be very ill yet still legally responsible. That is why the experts are focusing on two things. First, what the records show before and after the deaths. Second, what her behavior during the event suggests about awareness. The defense says a commanding voice drove her. The state says the pattern does not fit true psychosis.

Why This Case Strikes A Nerve Beyond The Courtroom

Postpartum psychosis cases are rare, and they are often misunderstood by the public. Scholars and doctors say courts have allowed postpartum psychosis to support insanity claims since the 1980s, but outcomes vary widely. The standard is strict, and many juries still see intent where doctors see illness. That long history frames why this trial feels so hard and so emotional for many families.

⚖️✨”𝗚𝗼 𝘁𝗼 𝗚𝗼𝗱, 𝗯𝗮𝗯𝘆. 𝗚𝗼 𝘁𝗼 𝗚𝗼𝗱.”

Jarring testimony in the Lindsay Clancy trial —and it came from forensic psychologist,
Dr. Kirk Heilbrun.

You could hear a pin drop.

He told the jury that while Clancy was strangling her children she said, “Go to God,… https://t.co/LgkP1DvwkH pic.twitter.com/PC4fHTvwpI

— Tosca Austen (@ToscaAusten) August 26, 2026

People on the right and the left share deeper worries that show up here. They see a system that struggles to handle mental health, even after red flags. They see experts who disagree and records that feel incomplete. They see laws that are slow to match medical science, while families face the worst loss. Whatever the verdict, the case raises old questions about care, safety, and how our courts judge a sick mind.

What To Watch As The Trial Nears Its End

Closing arguments will press two pictures of the same night. The defense will point to command hallucinations, dissociation, and the loss of control reported to doctors. They will say the law excuses her because she could not follow it then. The prosecution will point to planning and awareness, and to records that do not show psychosis. They will say the law holds her responsible because she knew it was wrong.

Jurors will weigh expert credibility, medical records, and behavior details. They will apply a strict legal test to a tragic event. That is a heavy task for any citizen panel. It is also a reminder that mental health care often fails long before a courtroom steps in. Many readers will see this and ask why help did not arrive sooner, and whether our systems serve families when they need it most.