Lindsay Clancy Jury Has 5 Possible Verdicts as Deliberations Continue After Deadlock

After more than 17 hours of deliberations, jurors weighing Lindsay Clancy’s fate told the judge they were unable to reach a unanimous decision — but they were sent back to continue deliberating.

Clancy, 36, is charged with first-degree murder in the January 2023 deaths of her three children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, who was 8 months old.

 

Although prosecutors brought first-degree murder charges, the jury has several possible verdicts to consider. Those options range from first-degree murder to manslaughter, not guilty, or a finding that Clancy was not criminally responsible because of a mental disease or defect.

Clancy has never disputed that she killed her children. Instead, she has pleaded not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, effectively making her mental state at the time of the killings the central issue of the trial.

Prosecutors argue that Clancy deliberately killed the children inside the family’s Duxbury, Mass., home before attempting to take her own life. The defense maintains that she was experiencing postpartum psychosis and had been dangerously overmedicated when the killings occurred.

The jury’s first-degree murder option requires them to find that Clancy acted with deliberate premeditation or that the killings involved extreme atrocity or cruelty under Massachusetts law.

A first-degree murder conviction would result in life imprisonment without parole.

Jurors may also choose second-degree murder. Unlike first-degree murder, second-degree murder does not require proof of premeditation or extreme atrocity and cruelty. A conviction would still carry a life sentence, but Clancy would be eligible for parole.

A third possibility is manslaughter, a lesser offense. If convicted of manslaughter, Clancy could face as much as 20 years in prison for each count.

The jury also has two forms of acquittal available.

Jurors could find Clancy simply not guilty if prosecutors failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed the crimes charged.

They could also find her not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.

That outcome would be significantly different from an ordinary acquittal.

 

If jurors determine that Clancy was not criminally responsible because of a mental illness, she would not necessarily be released from custody. Instead, she could undergo an evaluation at a mental health facility for as long as 40 days.

Following that evaluation, prosecutors or officials at the facility could seek a court order committing her for treatment for up to six months.

At the end of that period, the court could consider another commitment lasting up to a year. Further commitments could potentially follow, depending on her condition and the court’s findings.

The defense has argued that Clancy’s severe psychiatric condition prevented her from understanding the nature or wrongfulness of what she was doing.

Her attorney, Kevin Reddington, has pointed to postpartum psychosis, medication issues and the treatment Clancy received in the weeks before the killings.

Prosecutors have presented a very different picture, arguing that Clancy understood what she was doing and made deliberate decisions before killing her children.

The prosecution has also emphasized evidence it says demonstrates that Clancy knew her thoughts about harming her children were wrong and intentionally kept those thoughts from medical providers.

Now, after more than 17 hours of deliberations and an initial report of deadlock, the 12 jurors have been instructed to continue their discussions.

For the moment, no verdict has been reached — and all of the available options remain on the table.

Of those possibilities, an ordinary not-guilty verdict would likely be the most difficult for prosecutors to secure because the defense itself has acknowledged that Clancy killed the children. The crucial question for the jury is whether the evidence proves criminal responsibility for those deaths beyond a reasonable doubt.