Lindsay Clancy jury deliberates as retired judge lays out what an insanity verdict would actually mean

As jurors weigh whether Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible for strangling her three children in their Duxbury, Massachusetts, home, a retired judge's explanation of the civil commitment process raises hard questions about accountability and justice.

Jurors at Plymouth Superior Court wrapped up a second day of deliberations Friday without reaching a verdict in the case that has gripped the country since January 2023, when Clancy allegedly used exercise bands to strangle five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callan before attempting to take her own life. She jumped from a second-floor window and is now paralyzed. The jury is expected to return Monday.

The central question is straightforward: Did Clancy know right from wrong when she killed her children? If jurors decide she did not, that postpartum psychosis stripped her of that capacity, she walks out of the criminal justice system entirely. No prison. No murder conviction. Instead, she enters a civil commitment process that a retired Massachusetts judge says could end far sooner than most people assume.

Forty days, six months, and then annual reviews

Carol Erskine, a retired Massachusetts judge and child welfare advocate, told Fox News Digital that a not-criminally-responsible verdict would trigger a specific legal sequence. First, the trial judge would order a 40-day evaluation in a locked psychiatric unit.

"If the recommendation is for a civil commitment because there's likelihood of serious harm under the statute, then there would be a commitment for a period of six months," Erskine said. "And that would, again, be in a locked unit."

After six months, the process shifts to annual reviews. Each year, evaluators would assess whether Clancy still meets the legal standard for commitment, whether she poses a likelihood of serious harm. If evaluators determine she no longer meets that threshold, the facility's superintendent could recommend discharge. At that point, the district attorney's office and Clancy's defense attorney would both have the right to be heard in court.

Erskine posted on X that Clancy "could remain hospitalized for many years, even indefinitely, but only as long as the legal criteria for civil commitment continue to be met." She also stressed that Clancy would not face what she called "a 'life sentence in a public mental hospital.'"

That distinction matters. Three children are dead. The oldest was five. The youngest had not yet celebrated a first birthday. And the system Erskine describes is built around treatment and release, not punishment and permanence.

Erskine says paralysis would not keep Clancy committed

One question hanging over the case is whether Clancy's paralysis, the result of her suicide attempt, would factor into any commitment evaluation. She is confined to a wheelchair. Could she realistically pose a threat of serious harm?

Erskine addressed that directly.

"I don't think it would play a huge role in how they evaluate whether she has a mental illness that creates a likelihood of serious harm because we're talking about serious harm to herself as well," she said.

In other words, the commitment standard is not limited to whether Clancy could physically harm someone else. Self-harm counts. But that also means the day evaluators conclude she is no longer a danger to herself, the legal justification for keeping her locked up begins to erode, regardless of what she did to her children.

Defense says Clancy begged for help and got 'lousy medical care'

The defense has not disputed that Clancy killed Cora, Dawson, and Callan. Instead, her attorney Kevin Reddington argued she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder so severe that she could not form the intent to commit murder. Reddington told the jury that Clancy received "lousy medical care" despite repeatedly reaching out for help, including contacting doctors and a suicide hotline.

"My God, what does she have to do? She was reaching out for help, and she was not getting it."

Reddington made his case bluntly: "This young lady is not guilty of the killing of her children because she was suffering from a disease and defect."

Prosecutors see it differently. They told jurors Clancy knew exactly what she was doing, that she strangled the children because she was depressed and tired of living, and made a conscious choice to kill them before attempting suicide. The prosecution's final witnesses attempted to cast doubt on the claim that a voice ordered Clancy to kill her children. AP News reported that Clancy had been discharged from a psychiatric hospital less than three weeks before the killings, a fact that cuts both ways, suggesting both the severity of her illness and the system's awareness of it.

Some trial observers have noted that the composition of the jury itself could shape the outcome. A former prosecutor in the Susan Smith case warned that women jurors may actually be the toughest on a postpartum psychosis defense, a dynamic worth watching as deliberations continue.

Shapiro predicts jury may side with the defense

Robert Shapiro, the attorney best known for defending O.J. Simpson, weighed in on the case and suggested the jury may ultimately accept the mental illness argument. Shapiro told Newsmax that proving Clancy knew right from wrong at the time of the killings is "a very difficult burden" for prosecutors.

"I think the likelihood is that they're going to come out in favor of finding that there was a mental illness so severe that she could not form the intent to commit a murder."

Shapiro called the case "one of those horrible human events where there's no good outcome for anybody."

He is right about that much. But the question is not whether the outcome is tragic for everyone involved. It is whether the system's answer to the killing of three children, a 40-day evaluation, a six-month locked-unit stay, and annual reviews that could lead to release, is proportionate to what happened in that Duxbury home.

Jurors have four options on the table

The jury can return one of several verdicts: guilty of first-degree murder, guilty of second-degree murder, guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter, or not criminally responsible by reason of insanity. Each carries vastly different consequences. A first-degree murder conviction in Massachusetts means life without parole. A finding of no criminal responsibility means Clancy enters the civil commitment pipeline Erskine described, and could, in theory, walk free once evaluators say she is no longer a danger.

Erskine acknowledged the uncertainty plainly.

"It's really impossible to say how long she would be committed if she's committed because it all depends on if she is initially committed [and] these yearly evaluations."

That candor is appreciated. But for the families and communities watching this case, "it's really impossible to say" is a difficult thing to hear when three small children are in the ground.

Postpartum psychosis is real. Mental illness is real. But so is the principle that consequences must bear some relationship to the gravity of the act. A system that treats the killing of three children as a medical question, answerable by annual psychiatric reviews, asks the public to accept a version of justice that many will find impossible to square with common sense.