PLYMOUTH, Mass. — After weeks of testimony, the fate of Lindsay Clancy is now in the hands of a Plymouth County jury Thursday following closing arguments in her high-profile murder trial.
Closing arguments took approximately two hours, with the prosecution and defense each receiving one hour to present their final case to jurors.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington was first to deliver his closing argument, telling jurors that Clancy was experiencing postpartum psychosis when she killed the children. He also told them that Clancy had been a loving mother before her mental health spiraled.
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague delivered her closing argument for the Commonwealth. Sprague alleges Clancy sent her then-husband to get some take-out food at a local restaurant to give her time to kill the children. She even checked a map to see how long it would take him to collect the food and return home.
After closing arguments, the judge instructed the jury on the law. They were sent off to deliberate just after 12:30 p.m.
[DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks]
What verdict options will jurors consider?
Jurors will be instructed on several possible verdicts before beginning deliberations. They will be able to consider first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, or find Clancy not guilty. Jurors could also determine that Clancy was not criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children.
Clancy’s defense team has centered its case on an insanity defense, arguing that the former labor and delivery nurse was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis and failed to receive appropriate mental health treatment in the months leading up to the killings.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington has sought to convince jurors that Clancy was not criminally responsible when her children died, arguing that her mental state prevented her from understanding the wrongfulness of her actions.
Prosecutors, however, contend Clancy carefully planned and carried out the killings before attempting to take her own life. The Commonwealth has argued Clancy was not suffering from psychosis and remained capable of making rational decisions.
What happened in court on Wednesday?
The prosecution’s final witness, a forensic psychiatrist, testified Wednesday that Clancy suffered from bipolar II disorder but was not psychotic at the time of the children’s deaths.
During cross-examination, Reddington challenged the psychiatrist’s conclusions and questioned his expertise. At one point, Reddington read a passage outlining the prosecution’s theory of the case without initially identifying it as language taken from the prosecution’s opening statement.
When asked whether the evidence supported the theory that Clancy believed no one could care for her children the way she could, the psychiatrist pushed back.
“I think that statement that you read really minimizes what she was going through,” the witness testified.
[SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]