48 Hours - Inside the Final Days of the Lindsay Clancy Trial

Episode Date: August 27, 2026

A mistrial motion, testimony from family members, and a battle of forensic psychology and psychiatry experts mark the final days of the Lindsay Clancy trial. “48 Hours” correspondent Natalie Morales and CBS News legal analyst Caroline Polisi break down the key testimonies, the debate over postpartum psychosis, and what comes next for the jury.

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 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 error of inquiry and that this witness is understanding. of Catholic dogma or Catholic teaching is irrelevant.

That was the judge in the Commonwealth v. Lindsay 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 Redington requesting a mistrial immediately due to intentional. misconduct. Lindsay Clancy, the Duxbury, Massachusetts mother, has been on trial for the past five weeks for the killing of her three young children, five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callan. And as a reminder, Lindsay 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 Lindsay 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. 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-hour's YouTube channel or by searching case-by-case on Paramount Plus. Returning this week is CBS News, News, New York. legal analyst Caroline Polisi, who has covered this case with us before. Caroline, 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 moments. 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 Heilbrun. to the stand. Now, he had evaluated Lindsay 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 when I ask her about that, when I said, isn't suicide of 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 and the impact of the effect that it would have on Lindsay, as well as her 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 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 a motion for mistrial. The judge, as 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 Lindsay'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 an active member in the Catholic Church? Yes. So you're aware that murder is considered a mortal sin. Counsel, 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 egregious this first time because it's actually coming from the prosecutor, right? The second time, you know, they argued it was inadvertent. They didn't know he was 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 rebuttal 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 will say, Natalie, 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 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 this down 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 symptomology? In late October. And how did that come about? She sent me a text message. Do you recall when that was? Yes, that was on October 20th. Now, Your Honor, 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 know how I'm going to get through the day. I started taking 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. law as well on the stand. She reached out to me in November and told me that she felt unwell.

Did she describe any symptoms? She did. Tell the jurors what she said. 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 seeing a doctor? Yes, she asked for my support. And did you, you obviously gave it to her? Yes. And what did you do to make any recommendations for them?

I reached out to my colleagues who were running a clinic for women that was struggling post-potten. Do you have an opinion with your observations of Lindsay as to whether or not, She was offered help who just spurn it and not see doctors or not he 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 witnesses really build the case that that Lindsay Clancy and those closest to her all really knew she was unwell. 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 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's he made in December about having thoughts about harming the children.

When in December was that? I don't exactly remember. I would say early to mid-December, probably, maybe earlier rather than mid-December. But 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 in 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 and like, what did you do about it? Right. 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, 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 noted, these like multiple instances where Lindsay's mom had these really like terse 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 get that way, you know, it's really escalating intention. Well, the defense also brought forensic psychiatrist and psychologist to the stand who could speak to Lindsay Clancy's treatment and alleged postpartum psychosis. One notable witness was forensic psychiatrist, Dr. 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, 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 Reznik 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 replay some of his testimony here.

And I believe the jury has heard from various treaters, such as Dr. Tufts and Nurse Delata and others, and her own anguish about how de Cress she was, where she actually felt she couldn't function. Her brain was damaged. She would never be the same. So she definitely met the definition of a major depression as well as this bipolar phenomena. Now, with respect to the postpartum aspect, since this Kiancy's symptoms began within three months of Callan'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, 2003, his plancy was frankly psychotic. So in that sense, she had a postpartum psychosis. So, Caroline, 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 Yates, 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 philicide. It's a relatively rare occurrence, but it's when parents kill their children.

And as you said, he really gained credibility in my mind when he noted that he had been retained by the defense in the Casey Anthony trial, but 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 doesn't go the way they want it to. This is like, you know, a huge issue for cross-examinations for any experts. It's known as retention bias. So, you know, you often see lines of questioning where implying that these people are sort of like hired guns for the prosecution or the defense, that they're, you know, getting paid thousands of dollars to come up with a conclusion or, you know, an idea or, you know, a, you know, a. an ultimate resolution that fits with the narrative for the side that they've been retained by. To me, you know, Dr. Resnick seemed very credible. Well, 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 Lindsay Clancy back in April this year

and shared his opinion on her diagnosis. Here's some of his testimony from the prosecutor's questioning. Opinion about her diagnosis in the span from 2022 to 2023 is that she suffered from 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 made you come to that conclusion based on her presentations? The information about her feelings and the,

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. poor concentration, poor energy, perhaps also what's called psychomotor agitation or retardation. And now, again, let's play a clip from the Defences 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. What is the jury facing here? I mean, Dr. Mack seems to have a completely different opinion. on Lindsay 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 Lindsay Clancy, I know that came into question as well because it was just, you know, it was April of this year versus three years ago when the killings

happened. Yeah, that was a huge line for Cross. But, I mean, Natalie, this is the heart of this case. This is like a Roar Shock test, right? 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 Lindsay these different diagnoses at the time 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. And that's, that's really important that 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 side,

you know, Dr. Mack 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 postpartum mental 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 and conspiracies out there. Now, Catherine Caduto is an assistant professor of media science at Boston University. She says there's actually a name for this. It's called forensic fandom. Caduto 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 support of Lindsay 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 Lindsay 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 their view 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, think of famously the OJ Simpson trial, Casey Anthony, Bill Cosby, those juries were sequestered. Yeah. On Monday, seemingly in response to Lindsay 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 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 play some testimony from Lindsay's mother, who, you know, I think really, really. brought it home to so many of us. I know what she said really stayed with me. I want to play some of that here. I love my grandchildren with all my heart. And you never know what it's like to love a grandchild until 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 were 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 all have experienced emotionally on so many sides of this case. But we want to thank you once again, Caroline, for joining us this week and breaking it all down for us again. Thanks for being here. 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 1833 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. They're completely cut off from the outside world. A new Paramount Plus documentary. The narrative is we are a cult. No, I'm doing this out of my own free will. Gives unprecedented access to Gloria Vale, the controversial closed society in New Zealand. 38 charges of sexually offending children.

Wrong things have occurred. They do not define who we are. Can't you just accept the fact that I love my life? I need to destroy them. Devotion, obedience or betrayal. Now streaming on Paramount Plus.