Inside the Final Days of the Lindsay Clancy Trial

As a warning, some of this content contains graphic and disturbing details including discussions of suicide and the killing of children. So please listen or watch with care. We'll have resources at the end of the episode. I'm not going to declare a mistrial at this time. What I am going to do is I'm going to bring the jury in. I'm going to tell them to disregard it. I'm going to tell them that's an inappropriate ear of inquiry and that this witness's understanding of Catholic dogma or Catholic teaching is irrelevant. That was the judge in the Commonwealth versus Lindsey Clancy case in one of several tense moments this week as the trial comes to a close. Now this was a shocking moment in the trial when one of the prosecution's expert witnesses brought up the Clancy family's Catholic faith while on the stand and it led to defense attorney Kevin Reddington requesting a mistrial immediately due to intentional misconduct. Lindsey Clancy, the Ducksbury Massachusetts mother, has been on trial for the past five weeks for the killing of her three young children, five-year-old Korra, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callan. As a reminder, Lindsey is paralyzed from the waist down as a result of jumping from her second story window after killing her three children that night in her own attempt to kill herself. Now there is no question as to whether Lindsey killed her children. Now what the jury has to decide is whether she should be held criminally responsible. The defense argued that she experienced undiagnosed postpartum psychosis that took away her ability to control her actions and therefore that she should not be found criminally responsible. They also argued that her condition was exacerbated by the 13 different psychiatric medications she had been prescribed. I do want to emphasize though that it is the prosecution that has the burden of proof here. I'm 48 hours correspondent Natalie Morales and this is Case by Case. Now we've been following this case closely in our last several episodes for our continuing coverage. You can check the Case by Case feed wherever you find your podcasts. You can also watch episodes of Case by Case on the 48 hours YouTube channel or by searching Case by Case on Paramount Plus. Returning this week is CBS News Legal Analyst Caroline Polisi who has covered this case with us before. Caroline's so great to always have your insights and your input on this very important case. Thanks for being here. Thanks for having me Natalie. Caroline this has become such an emotionally divisive case for those who've been watching closely both inside and outside the courtroom. It's a case as we've said it has garnered such huge interest. It sparked lots of important conversations regarding mental health particularly maternal mental health. Now the courtroom in Plymouth, Massachusetts has been packed for weeks and Caroline what we've really seen this has become a battle of the medical experts with conflicting and sometimes opposing testimony throughout the past five weeks and some very tense moment. So I want to start by asking you about an intense moment during the rebuttal after the defense rested their case. The prosecution then called forensic psychologist Dr. Kirk Heilbron to the stand. Now he had evaluated Lindsey in April of this year and he recounted what she told him about her recollection and state of mind at the time of the killings three years ago. Let's play some of his testimony. One of the things that she said when asked about what happened is that in the course of strangling each child she said go to God baby go to God. And that was part of her expectation that she and the children would be together in heaven with God. She was raised as a Catholic and this as I understand Catholic considerations that's not necessarily what happens but but when I ask her about that when I said isn't suicide a mortal sin. Yeah can I see counsel over here? Well you heard immediately there that's Clancy's defense attorney Kevin Reddington then calling for that mistrial. Here he is asking Judge Sullivan. It's a concern I have because this is just over the top. It's the same thing again talking about religion, talking about heaven, talking about killing people in the in the impact of the effect it would have on on on Lindsey as well as for children. The fact that this is not the first time that it occurred during the trial and the prosecution has previously brought up the concept of a mortal sin based on your ruling in the past in conjunction with the fact that they brought it up again. I believe it was intentional misconduct and I feel that the court should grant the motion for mistrial. The judges we heard denied the motion for mistrial but how could this now affect the case? Yeah that's right Natalie I mean remember this wasn't actually even the first time that the defense had objected to this line of questioning. I mean the prosecution had actually previously asked Lindsey's mother-in-law at the time her former mother-in-law now about her being in the Catholic church about her being active there and then proceeded to ask the question are you aware that murder is a mortal sin? Yeah I mean it was shocking to hear that in court. I just want to replay a little bit of that here just so you get a more of a feel for it. Now are you active member in the Catholic church? Yes. So you're aware that murder is considered a mortal sin? Can I see you over here? Yeah so Natalie I mean as a defense attorney I can't even begin to express how highly inappropriate that line of questioning was and even more agree just this first time because it's actually coming from the prosecutor right? The second time you know they argued it was inadvertent they inadvertent they didn't know he was kind of kind of going to go there but the prosecutors they know the rules of evidence. I mean they explicitly prohibit inquiring about a witness's religious beliefs. Not only is it inflammatory and prejudicial but it's not even relevant right? It doesn't go to the ultimate issue in this case I mean you can't unring that bell right? So to speak I mean ultimately yes no mistrial the judge ruled no mistrial but honestly I mean this could be a really compelling issue on appeal if there is a conviction in this case really one of the strongest issues for an appeal that I've seen in a long time in a trial. So the prosecution brought their last rubble witness to the stand on Wednesday Dr. Gregory Satoff he's a forensic psychiatrist at the University of Virginia and a senior psychiatrist for the FBI's behavioral analysis unit. Caroline how effective was he as a witness? Yeah I mean I was saying Natalie things are things are really getting messy here right at the end of the prosecution's case I mean I think a little bit their narrative is getting away from them so much so that Kevin Reddington on his recross of this final witness who by the way has you know very heavy hitting credentials I mean he's he's the head of the FBI's behavioral analysis unit and I think was was quite credible their expert witnesses. I mean they showed compassion for this woman essentially their argument is that she was in a really serious mental crisis they just disagree on what that exactly was and so we're seeing evidence here that the prosecution is putting on that she just was in a really really deep depressive state a postpartum depression not necessarily a postpartum psychosis so this is where the case sort of rises and falls for the jurors there's been a lot of conflicting testimony about what her ultimate diagnosis was ultimately you know it's up to the jury to decide what her state of mind was on that night. Right and she was never diagnosed with postpartum psychosis. The defense's witnesses began to take the stand on August 17th now defense attorney Kevin Reddington called a number of people to the stand who could speak to who Lindsay is as a person and what they may have known about what she was going through at the time and leading up to her killing the kids now among those called her mother and her former mother-in-law let's play some of their testimony from first starting with Lindsay's mother here. At what point if any did you become aware that your daughter was suffering from this symptom? In late October and how did that come about? she sent me a text message. You recall when that was? Yes that was on October 20th. Now you're on the government has introduced into evidence the entire of the phone dumps if you will and I think they put it on a disc and it's probably thousands of pages but I do have the text thread that deals with that time frame in October. Mom will you please come up and stay with me for a bit. I'm really sick. Something is wrong. I had horrible insomnia all night and I just don't I don't know how I'm going to get through the day. I decided to take it. the medicine my doctor prescribed for anxiety and I think it's made things worse it's just really scary and I don't want to be alone. heartbreaking to hear that testimony from her mother and then here now is a snippet of Lindsay's former mother-in-law as well on the stand she reached out to me in November and told me that she felt unwell she did she felt mostly she had insomnia she was losing her appetite she was very anxious and sad did she tell you that she was seeing doctors yes and at some point did you recommend did she come to you and ask you for help regarding saying a doctor yes she asked for my support and did you obviously gave it to me yes and what did you do to make any recommendations I reached out to my colleagues who were running a clinic for women that were struggling post-pottom you have an opinion with your observations of Lindsay as to whether or not she was offered help we just burned it did not see doctors she was begging for help begging for help as you heard there so here you can see according to the testimony Lindsay reached out to both sides of the family for support in the months before the killings so Caroline how does this fit into the defense's broader approach yeah well I mean I think like you said these these witnesses really build the case that that Lindsay Clancy and those closest to her all all really knew she was unwell you know I think the defense is trying to just prove that there are multiple instances of Lindsay asking for help and that she really wouldn't have asked for help if she was you know secretly planning on killing her children right now the the prosecution then cross-examine Lindsay's mother I want to play some of that for you here now you testified in direct examination about the statements that Lindsay made in December about having thoughts about harming the children was when in December was that I don't exactly remember I would say early to mid December probably or maybe earlier rather than mid December I don't exactly remember when okay and when she made the statement that she had thoughts of harming the children did either you or Patrick ask her what she meant by that I believe I remember Pat asking her if she felt like she couldn't be alone with the children and she said no and after she made those statements did you have any thoughts about committing her no did you have any thoughts about having her come stay with you and Connecticut away from the children no were you concerned for the children's safety at that point in time no because I was there so Caroline what is the point that the prosecution seems to be making here yeah I think you can see the prosecution furthering this argument that Lindsay was of sound mind she may have been struggling but in those weeks leading up to when she killed her children she was you know coherent she was thoughtful she was able to complete tasks I mean they do can see that she was you know experiencing serious mental health problems but this overarching theory is that basically she was yes depressed and anxious but not psychotic yeah and Caroline that exchange that we heard it felt a little bit like they were questioning you know the moms in like what did you do about it right how how did you take that as like it's almost as if they were putting some of these witnesses in the position of having to defend themselves and sort of defend their actions you know there were these as you know these like multiple instances where Lindsay's mom had these really like cursed responses to the prosecution's questioning and she'd you know say things along the line of I don't recall or you know that's what the text says in response and you can tell when when witnesses start to to get that way you know it's really escalating intention well the defense also brought forensic psychiatrist and psychologist to the stand to could speak to Lindsay Clancy's treatment and alleged postpartum psychosis one notable witness was forensic psychiatrist doctor Philip Resnick now Resnick if you know the name he's had some he's been a consultant on some pretty high profile cases including the Jeffrey Dahmer case case in Casey Anthony trials he also testified for the defense of Andrea Yates now Yates for those who may not remember she was that Houston Texas woman who confessed to drowning her five children in their bathtub back in 2001 she was found not guilty by reason of insanity and she was committed to a psychiatric facility where she remains to this day so Resnick evaluated Lindsay Clancy and her parents about four months after the Clancy children were killed and the defense attorney Kevin Reddington brought him to the stand last Friday morning I'm going to replace some of his testimony here and I believe the jury has heard from various creators such as Dr. Tufts and nurse Delotta and others and her own language about how depressed she was where she actually felt she couldn't function her brain was damaged she would never be the same so the she definitely met the definition of a major depression as well as this bipolar phenomenon now with respect to the postpartum aspect since this Clancy's symptoms began within three months of Callum's birth that would be considered a postpartum onset then of course she had considerable difficulty over the next five months and at the time of the crime itself on January 24 2023 this Clancy was frankly psychotic so in that sense she had a postpartum psychosis so Carolina I want to talk about what we just heard here because you know I'd like your take on the merit of having an expert witness like this when we talk about Jeffrey Dahmer Casey Anthony Andrea Gates probably being the most close case to this one I mean Dr. Resnick is no stranger to criminal trials of this caliber with this national attention yeah I mean in fact he's actually a leading expert on what's known as philocyte it's it's a relatively rare occurrence but it's it's when parents kill their children and as you said he he really gained credibility in my mind when he noted that he had been retained by the defense in the case the Anthony trial but he he said he couldn't be helpful to their defense which I think sort of speaks volumes in that he clearly came to and comes to independent conclusions when he's being retained even if it's you know doesn't go the way they want it to this is like you know a huge issue for cross examinations for for any experts it's it's it's known as retention bias so you know you often often see lines of questioning where implying that these people are sort of like higher guns for the prosecution or the defense that they're you know getting paid thousands of dollars to come up with a conclusion or or you know an idea or you know a a ultimate resolution that fits with the narrative for the for the side that they've been retained by to me you know Dr. Resnick seemed very credible of the defense rested its case on Friday August 21st that same day the commonwealth called additional witnesses to the stand in the prosecution's rebuttal first on the stand was forensic psychiatrist dr. Abram Mack who evaluated Lindsey Clancy back in April this year and shared his opinion on her diagnosis here's some of his testimony from the prosecutors questioning opinion about her diagnosis in the span from 2022 to 2023 is that she suffered from a what's called a major depressive episode that probably is a part of what's called a major depressive disorder but the important point about it is the major depressive episode what what what made you come to that conclusion based on her presentations the information about her feelings and the progression of her illness highlighted that it was best represented by a major depressive episode it's a condition defined in DSM 5 where an individual displays problems with mood problems with feeling pleasure feelings of guilt or worthlessness problems with appetite problems with sleep preoccupation with death or suicide. side, poor concentration, poor energy, perhaps also what's called psychomotor agitation or retardation. And now, again, let's play a clip from the defenses cross of Dr. Mack. And you also were able to review records from Jennifer Tufts from an appointment with the defendant the day before the incident occurred, correct? I did. And again, in those records, did you find anything that would have been suggestive of mania or hypomania? Not of mania or hypomania, no. What about psychosis? Did you observe any of that? I did not. Throughout the period in question. All right. So as we've mentioned over and over again, Caroline, you get these conflicting testimonies. Testimonies, what is the jury facing here? I mean, Dr. Mack seems to have a completely different opinion on Lindsey Clancy's diagnosis. And I mean, I can imagine that is going to be really tough for the jury to then have to decide again, who has the most credibility here. And also the timing of when he interviewed Lindsey Clancy, I know that came into question as well because it was just, you know, it was April of this year. Yeah. And versus three years ago, when the killing's happened, that was, that was a huge line for, for cross. But I mean, now this, this is the heart of this case. This is like a Rorschach test, right? You, you have like the same evidence being used on both sides. So here we see these different experts using her, you know, the symptoms and what she told providers both sort of using them in different ways. And giving Lindsey these different diagnoses at the time that that the killings took place. So on the defense side, you have, you know, Dr. Resnick saying that she was in a state of postpartum psychosis. And he really described that really vividly where she was, you know, hearing and experiencing these auditory command hallucinations telling her to kill her children, which she was, you know, physically unable to resist acting upon. That's, that's really important at point because that's essentially the legal standard for not criminally responsible. So he described her as like a puppet who wasn't controlling the strings. So, you know, and then we have on the prosecution size, you know, Dr. Max saying, well, no, she was experiencing all of these symptoms. However, that's more indicative of, yes, a serious mental health crisis, but not psychosis. He's saying instead it was a major depressive episode, you know, and that even in the depths of this very deep depression, she still was able to know the difference between right and wrong. And she would have been able to conform her conduct to the law. And that's again the standard. And that's ultimately what the jury is going to decide in this case. Well, as we've said, the Clancy case has certainly dominated headlines and social media for the past few weeks. You know, on the one hand, the case has sparked some really meaningful conversations on postpartamental health and treatment. And on another hand, we've seen people online follow the case so closely that some have even come up with a few pretty wild theories, some conspiracies out there. Now, Catherine Coduto is an assistant professor of media science at Boston University. She says there's actually a name for this. It's called forensic fandom. Coduto broke down this phenomenon in an interview with the Guardian. She says it's basically when true crime viewers start playing detective rather than being a spectator. And I'm sure Caroline, you've seen a lot of that and heard a lot of people talking about it, even on your own social media. Yeah, Natalie, I mean, I've definitely seen some of that on my feet. I mean, people are really homing in on every little detail in this case, picking apart the timeline, for example, you know, her body temperature. I mean, a lot of viewers have picked up on a lot of really, you know, minute evidence in this case. Let's talk more about this high profile nature of this case. I mean, last Thursday hundreds of women were waiting outside the courthouse wearing pink in supportive Lindsey Clancy and CBS News reported that the judge actually questioned the jurors one by one. What can you tell us about that? And why was that questioning necessary? Yeah. The jury was sworn in and then each one was questioned individually because the judge really wanted to make sure that they could stay impartial, right? I mean, outside the courthouse, there were these throngs of Lindsey supporters, you know, a sea of pink. And you can see how witnessing those supporters might impact how the jury sees this case. Remember, they're warned every single day. Do not consume any media about this case. Don't go on social media. Don't do their own research. Don't even discuss this case with anyone, not even their spouses. So, you know, it's hard to do that in this day and age, Natalie. I mean, just seeing those protests could have had an impact on the review of the case, which is, you know, an outside influence, which is considered legally improper. Just to note that in almost all high profile cases that get extensive media coverage, judges do go to great lengths to make sure that jurors are not exposed to media coverage. And that's, you know, why we sometimes hear of juries being sequestered, although we're seeing that less and less. But, you know, I think of the famously, the OJ Simpson trial. Casey Anthony, Bill Hasby, those juries were sequestered. Yeah. On Monday, seemingly in response to Lindsey supporters, people were then out there in white shirts. They were also seen outside the courtroom. And they wore the white shirts in remembrance of the Clancy children. And, you know, as we said, this has really become this, you know, sadly, you hate to put it this way, but almost water cooler conversation. I mean, I, I get asked about it. You get asked about it as well. How we feel about the case, who is more credible in the case. I mean, as you said, passions are on all sides here and very raw, very emotional. And as we come to a close here, I think Caroline, an important reminder to place some testimony from Lindsey's mother, who, you know, I think really brought it home to so many of us. I know what she said really stayed with me. I want to place some of that here. I love my grandchildren with all my heart. And you never know what it's like to love a grandchild, and you tell you become a grandmother. And it was the most beautiful thing. I love them with all my heart. Yeah, I think so many in that moment, we're just thinking about those beautiful three children. I can't imagine what it must have been like for members of the Clancy family to take the stand and it really does serve as a reminder of what was lost back in January of 2023. I mean, three innocent children, they were loved and missed to this day and the loss of these children is just what makes it so difficult for everyone in the courtroom. I mean, of course, including the Clancy family who've had to, you know, relive one of their worst days in a public setting. You just can't sadly take that thought out of your head, what, what all have experienced emotionally on so many sides at this case. But we want to thank you once again Caroline for joining us this week and breaking it all down for us again. Thank you so much for having me. Well, once again, we do want to take this moment to say that if you or someone you know may be experiencing a mental health crisis, contact the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, just call or text 988. Also, if you are pregnant or have just had a baby, you can dial or text the National Maternal Mental Health hotline at 1-833-TLC Mama. And we'll be back next week with another episode of Case by Case. Be sure to rate and review. Let us know which cases you're following and which cases you would like us to follow. A new Paramount Plus documentary series. We're about to go kill or some of them want it did look like a one-way ticket. Experience life on the front lines of infamous US Special Ops Forces missions. We are expecting 80% casualties. Told from the soldiers who risked everything. There's just way too many of them and way too few of us. And featuring exclusive unseen footage. Special Ops True. Now streaming on Paramount Plus.