Can a defendant argue that prosecutors failed to prove she committed the killings—and also present an insanity defense? Lindsay Clancy’s case brings that question into sharp focus following a deadlocked jury and her lawyer’s challenge to the evidence.

Lindsay Clancy was charged with murdering her three children—Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months—who were strangled at the family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts, home on January 24, 2023. At trial, her defense did not dispute that she killed the children, but argued that postpartum psychosis left her not criminally responsible. Prosecutors maintained that she understood what she was doing and remained criminally responsible. On September 4, 2026, the trial ended in a mistrial after jurors could not reach a unanimous verdict. She was neither convicted nor acquitted.

At the September 29 hearing, defense attorney Kevin Reddington challenged both the sufficiency of the evidence that Clancy committed the killings and the prosecution’s proof of criminal responsibility. On October 1, Judge William Sullivan denied the renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty, concluding that the evidence was sufficient for a jury to decide the case. That ruling was not a guilty verdict.

As of October 3, a separate defense motion seeking dismissal on double-jeopardy grounds remained pending, prosecutors were still evaluating whether to retry Clancy, and the next hearing was scheduled for November 2.

The panel will explore what the insanity defense actually requires, how it is raised and evaluated, and why the law recognizes it. How does mental illness differ from legal insanity? What role do forensic experts play? And how does a challenge to the prosecution’s evidence fit alongside a defense based on lack of criminal responsibility?

Special thanks to the panel guests: Phil Smith, Assistant State Attorney, Nancy Daniels, former Public Defender, and Dr. Ronda Harrison-Spoerl, forensic psychologist.