E-Paper
Lindsay Clancy trial: When is verdict, what it would mean? Lawyer Kevin Reddington's first reaction as defense rests
The defense has rested in the Lindsay Clancy trial and the accused's lawyer, Kevin Reddington spoke about what he felt might come next.
The defense has rested in the Lindsay Clancy trial and her lawyer, Kevin Reddington, spoke of what might come next. Lindsay Clancy stands accused of killing her three children – Cora, Dawson, and Callan.
The trial has been going on in Massachusetts and has captured the nation's attention. Lindsay is accused of strangling the kids with exercise bands on January 24, 2023. Her then-husband, Patrick Clancy, came back home after going to a CVS store and then getting takeout, to see Lindsay in the backyard. She had jumped from the second floor window in an attempt to kill herself. Patrick then found the kids in the basement and called emergency services.
While prosecution has argued that Lindsay sent Patrick out so she could allegedly kill the kids, her lawyers have not denied that Lindsay killed the children. However, they have argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was overly medicated at the time and didn't realize her actions.
Now, with defense resting, Lindsay's attorney Kevin Reddington spoke to reporter Lauren Conlin about what might come next.
Kevin Reddington on what's next in Lindsay Clancy trial
Reddington said that the Commonwealth might ask for a day off before or after closing arguments, and that the judge had made that an option. He said he wasn't sure when they would seek the day off.
The lawyer further said he hadn't been watching the jury during the trial laughingly saying he's ‘afraid’ to look. Further, Reddington said Lindsay was surprised and emotional about the support she got outside the courthouse on Thursday.
When is the verdict in the Lindsay Clancy trial
The defense has rested on August 21, Friday, after prosecution rested on Monday, August 17. After that, rebuttal witnesses were called by the prosecution – which is reportedly standard in insanity defense cases, as per The Guardian.
While defense had called Dr Phillip Resnick, prior to resting, prosecution called Dr Avram Mack. The former was a key witness in the murder trial of Andrea Yates, who in 2001, drowned her five kids in Texas, and in a 2006 retrial, was found not guilty due to insanity. Resnick and other medical professionals had testified that Yates suffered from postpartum psychosis. Meanwhile, Dr Mack contended, when he spoke to Lindsay in April, ‘she described feeling miserable, not wanting to be alive.’
Now, the testimonies are expected to continue on Monday, August 24, and as per Judge William Sullivan, closing statements will likely be held Tuesday, August 25, in Plymouth Superior Court.
After closing statements, the jury will deliberate on the matter and the verdict will then be announced. The exact time of the verdict being out is not known since jury deliberations could take a few hours to a few days.
What each verdict would mean
There are four possible outcomes the jury could reach. They could find Lindsay Clancy guilty of first-degree murder, or they could find her guilty of second degree murder. They could also find her not guilty by reason of mental illness or there could be a hung jury or mistrial.
If Lindsay is found guilty of first degree murder, she'd face a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. A second degree murder conviction would carry a life sentence as well, but with the chance of parole.
If she's found not guilty, Lindsay would walk free. However, David Rossman, director of the Criminal Law Clinical Program at Boston University, told CT Insider, that the court can order Lindsay to be hospitalized for up to 40 days for observation and then a petition for involuntary commitment can be made by prosecutors or hospital officials.
Then, if a judge finds Lindsay has mental illness and would pose a likelihood of serious harm if released, she can also be committed for six months which would be renewable in one-year increments.
Since Massachusetts needs a unanimous verdict, even one holdout would push deliberations to continue. If no result is reached again, then there'll be a mistrial and prosecutors can try the case again in front of a new jury.
