Lindsay Clancy trial finishes closing arguments; jury now deliberates murder vs. manslaughter

The judge called everyone back into court very briefly. The jury was told they’re done for the day and to come back in the morning to continue deliberations.

Like this morning, media swarmed Reddington as he left. It looked like the biggest media scrum of the trial so far.

When asked by NBC News asked about Clancy being visibly emotional today and how is she was doing, Reddington said she’s doing all right, but nervous.

"She’s scared," he said.

Court briefly reconvened for Sullivan to officially dismiss everyone for the day.

The jury — consisting of nine women and three men — has not yet come to a verdict after almost three and a half hours and will return tomorrow morning to continue deliberations.

Things were very intense this morning from the moment reporters walked into the packed courtroom.

Lindsay Clancy's parents, Paula and Mike Musgrove, center and right, listen to closing arguments at Plymouth Superior Court today. Greg Derr / Pool via The Patriot Ledger

During Reddington’s closing argument, Clancy’s parents seemed to be intently focused. Jurors were also glued to him, listening to every word.

During Sprague’s closing argument, one female juror in the back row wiped her eyes a few times. Clancy’s mom had her arm resting on the back of the seat at times. All eyes appeared to be on her.

Judge William Sullivan turned the case over to the jury after giving it detailed instructions on how to consider the charges against Clancy.

Before jurors were dismissed, a foreperson was selected — the juror in Seat 18 — and the court picked numbers out of a box to decide which jurors would be the alternates.

Sullivan told the jurors that he had no doubt they would bring their wisdom and conscience in reaching their verdict.

"Please have confidence in what you're about to do, all right? I have that confidence in you," Sullivan said. "I don't think I've ever seen a more dedicated group of jurors in any trial that I've ever been involved in."

Judge William Sullivan holds up the jury slip for the jury as he gives his final instructions. Greg Derr / Pool via The Patriot Ledgert

Sprague ended her closing argument by describing the children on the basement floor after Clancy killed them.

"She left them discarded on the basement floor, like broken toys, because she was done playing the game," Sprague told the jury. "You know, to a moral certainty, she is guilty."

Lindsay Clancy and attorney Kevin Reddington listen to the closing arguments. Greg Derr / Pool via The Patriot Ledger

Sprague is taking the time to detail exactly how Clancy killed her kids, and the fear they must have felt in the time they were being strangled.

"Just think of that — the being strangled and the pain and the confusion that they're going through," Sprague said. "Their mom is the one that's hurting them. Their mom is the one that's killing them."

And that, added Sprague, is "extreme atrocity and cruelty" — the burden the prosecution must prove for a first-degree murder conviction.

Sprague picked up the final quarter laid out by Reddington, who accused the prosecution of implying that Clancy was instructed to lie about hearing voices.

"We've never said that he told the defendant what to say," Sprague told the jury. "Not one witness, not one piece of evidence. The only person that said that we were trying to say Dr. Zizel told her to make up the voice is defense counsel."

Now talking about Clancy's suicide attempt, Sprague nabbed another of Reddington's quarters from the table.

The superficiality of the wounds, Sprague said, lends itself to the fact that Clancy had a hard time actually killing herself, even though she said the voice was compelling her to do it.

The drugs weren't taken in high enough quantities to die, the cuts weren't deep enough and the window wasn't high enough. If she were truly compelled by a voice, Sprague said, Clancy would have succeeded.

Reddington objected during Sprague's closing argument as she brought up the case of Andrea Yates, a woman who killed her five children in 2001.

Sprague was invoking Yates by pointing out that Yates hospitalized herself multiple times and tried to kill herself twice in an attempt to protect her children. Reddington took issue with the comparison.

"Let's move on from that," the judge instructed Sprague.

Why did Clancy kill her kids? As Sprague argues, she was upset, she was done, and she wanted to end her misery.

But her kids were keeping her alive. They were her protective factor, Sprague said.

"Those kids were keeping her from ending her misery, and so she had to remove the protective factor," Sprague said, adding: "It was what she had to do to end her misery, but it was a choice."

She made the choice not only to kill herself, but also to take her kids with her, Sprague said.

"It is a choice that that we don’t want to think about that a mother could make because that doesn’t make us feel safe or comfortable in this world," Sprague said. "But it’s a choice she made."

During Reddington's closing, he placed three quarters down on the table in front of the jury in specific challenges to the prosecution.

Jennifer Sprague picks up a quarter laid down by Kevin Reddington today. Greg Derr. / Pool via The Patriot Ledger

Sprague laid out her theory that Clancy took a call from her ex-husband after she strangled her children, disputing Clancy's claim that she killed her children in just under 20 minutes. The prosecutor told the jury it was not possible for Clancy to leave the exercise bands used without the bands relaxing around their throats.

"You have to pull them, and you know they weren't knotted — Patrick never testified that they were knotted. So I'll take this one," Sprague said before picking up one of the quarters.

A hot topic during this trial has been the timing of the phone call Patrick Clancy made to his then-wife on the night of Jan. 24, 2023.

As the defense has explained it, the voices in Clancy's head and the killings didn't start until after Patrick Clancy called her. But, as the prosecution says, that isn't enough time to kill three children and try to kill herself.

Sprague today asserted that Clancy must have begun carrying out the killings immediately after Patrick Clancy left home around 5:15 p.m.

Lindsay Clancy at the Plymouth Superior Court today. Greg Derr / Pool via The Patriot Ledger

Why would she say the psychosis and the voice compelling her to kill the children started after the call, Sprague asked?

"Because if she's already killed the kids because of a voice ... and she's like a puppet, then she can't get a call and miss it and then call the person back and have a conversation and then hang up," Sprague said.

"A puppet can't do those things. Those are decisions and choices and actions that she's controlling," she continued. "So she has to explain away the phone call because her behavior and her ability to have the phone call don't make sense if she's being compelled by a voice."

Sprague is describing the testimony from Clancy's ex-husband on his return home after Clancy killed their three children.

"And when he gets home, puts the things on the counter, and it's quiet," Sprague said. "It's quiet in a way that a house with three kids under 5 should not be during waking hours."

He called out to his family, but received no answer, Sprague went on. He went upstairs to see blood and an open window before running down to Clancy outside, the prosecution went on.

"And he says to her, 'What did you do?'" Sprague said. "And her response is, 'I tried to kill myself.'"

Sprague moved into detailing how prosecutors believe Clancy started planning the killings around 4 p.m. on Jan. 24, 2023, starting with her searching for kids Miralax and the menu for the takeout restaurant she sent Patrick Clancy to that night.

"If you're in distress, don't send him anywhere. Make food at home. Have him cook. Get delivery. Get DoorDash," Sprague suggested.

It's also been discussed how Clancy was looking up how long it would take her ex-husband to get to the restaurant and back, which the prosecution maintains was to ensure she had enough time to execute the killings.

"She needed to know not generally, but exactly 'How much time will I have?'" Sprague said, and when she decided she'd need more time, she added, as a "last-minute thought," that Patrick Clancy should run to CVS on the same trip.

But what seemed innocent might not have been — Sprague explained how she called that CVS to ensure the medication she wanted was in stock, so that Patrick Clancy wouldn't interrupt her plan.

"It's a level of planning there and thinking and decision-making," Sprague said.

Clancy's family had hope for her recovery up until Jan. 23, 2023, because that's what Clancy wanted them to believe, the prosecution told the jury.

Sprague outlined the belief from Clancy's ex-husband and mother that she was improving prior to Clancy killing her children. She said that the only person who had a glimpse into Clancy's depression was her psychologist.

"But even with Dr. Tufts, she still denied having a suicide plan, denied wanting to hurt anyone else, denied voices, denied visual visual hallucinations, showed no signs of psychosis, all the way up to Jan. 23," Sprague said.

In the months leading up to the killings, Clancy was "a functioning mom," seeing friends and caring for her kids, Sprague said.

Also in the months leading up to the killings, she told her husband and mother that she had thoughts of harming herself and her kids, but that she didn't tell healthcare providers about those thoughts.

"You know that she knew the difference between right and wrong during that time," Sprague said. Later, she added, “That’s a rational thought. ... She knew it was wrong.”

Sprague also detailed how Clancy didn't share this information with the long list of providers she was seeing in an attempt to get help.

“She lied to them,” Sprague said.

Prosecution closes with argument Clancy was a 'functioning mom' who knew 'right and wrong'

02:31

Sprague told the jury that Clancy was never turned away from mental health care, but that in fact Clancy refused help.

Jennifer Sprague at the Plymouth Superior Court today. Greg Derr / Pool via The Patriot Ledger

She pointed out that when a Rhode Island hospital told Clancy she might not be a fit for its program, she was offered three different options for care. Those options included inpatient, partial hospitalization and outpatient care that would allow Clancy to determine how much time she would feel comfortable being away from her children.

Clancy said she would discuss the options with her providers, but never did, Sprague said.

"You look at the records, she never discussed those options with them," Sprague said.

In an attempt to counter the defense's argument that Clancy was overmedicated and did not get proper mental health care when she asked, the prosecution again brought up the fact that few or no pills were missing from the bottles of the 13 prescription medications she was given.

"She wanted to get better, but she wanted to get better on her own terms, doing things her way, the way she thought she should do them. And as a nurse, she knew that's not the right way to approach it," Sprague said.

She went on to argue that internet searches proved Clancy wanted to get better and get back to her old life — and fast.

The state is highlighting Clancy's position of privilege by telling the jury that Clancy had more access to treatment and care "than a lot of people do."

Clancy had health insurance covering multiple doctors, she had access to specialty programs, and support at home, Sprague told the jury. She had 18 weeks of maternity leave and a nanny who helped with housework, the prosecutor added.

"This wasn't a woman suffering from a lack of care, a lack of resources," Sprague said. "She had an abundance of help, an abundance of care."

Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague began her closing argument by separating Clancy's mental health issues from the killings.

"There's no dispute that Lindsey Clancy was suffering from mental illness and that she tried to kill herself," Sprague said. "There's no dispute about that."

But the prosecutor went on to say that Clancy's distress was not the issue. The issue at the center of the trial was whether she knew right from wrong at the time of the killings.

"What's on trial here, what the issue is here is what Lindsey Clancy did the night of Jan. 24, 2023, and what her mental state was at the time," Sprague said.

After nearly an hour, Reddington has rested his case.

"This young lady is not guilty of the killing of her children because she was suffering from a disease and defect, as his honor instructed you, and they’re not going to be able to prove otherwise," he concluded. "And it’s their burden, not us."

Next up: The prosecution.

To cap off weeks of theatrics from Reddington, he referenced legendary horror film "The Shining."

Specifically, he likened Clancy's journals, which recounted her medications and feelings, to when Jack Nicholson's character was "in a state of complete psychosis" and writing a book, only for his wife to later find the book is full of the repeated phrase "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."

Reddington emphasized the testimony of Dr. Phillip Resnick, who testified that Clancy was psychotic at the time of the murders.

"He indicates clearly, in his opinion, that she was in a state of psychosis at the time of this death, times three," the defense attorney said.

Prosecution witnesses could not rebut Resnick through their own expert witnesses, Reddington claimed. He cited the testimony of forensic psychologist Kirk Heilbrun, a prosecution witness, who Reddingon told the jury said "it's possible either way."

"That's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt," he said.

In the days following Clancy's suicide attempt, when she was in the hospital and Reddington was brought in on the case, he said he brought in Paul Zeizel, a forensic psychologist, to see Clancy and aid on her case and evaluate her ever since.

“What kind of demons? What kind of horror was in her mind as she lay there paralyzed,” he recalled of the days in late January 2023.

Lindsay Clancy at the Plymouth Superior Court today. Greg Derr / Pool via The Patriot Ledger

He then slammed the prosecution's forensic psychologists, who only saw Clancy in the weeks leading up to the trial but said they wanted to create a "rapport" with her.

"Can you imagine? You know that you're three weeks away from your murder trial, and you know that this is doctor No. 3, who's been hired by the government to come in and evaluate you, and testify against you," Reddington said.

"There is no rapport," he added. "But yet she was cooperative. She was friendly."

Reddington is repeatedly telling the jury to "watch the manipulation" from the prosecutors.

He told them that the implication is that the Kingsbury Club that Clancy brought her children to sounds "snooty," but it was just "a swimming pool and a place where you can exercise." He went on to say that prosecutors are trying to say that Lindsay only said she heard a voice because she was told to say that, which he insists was untrue.

The attorney slapped a third quarter on the table while describing the manipulation as "disgusting."

The severity of Clancy's suicide attempt is a main point of Reddington's closing argument, pushing back on prior statements from the prosecution that appeared to undermine the seriousness of the attempt.

"We spent all that time showing through ... testimony that this was a legitimate, dreadful, horrific suicide attempt," Reddington said. "You think about this beautiful young girl throwing herself out a window."

He pressed the jury to "remember that" Clancy tried to kill herself.

While outlining the details of Clancy's suicide attempt, Reddington slapped a quarter on the table and addressed the prosecutors in what appeared to be a direct challenge to the state.

"That's a quarter — I don't know if you play pool," he said before adding he challenged prosecutors to explain to the jury a week of testimony on Clancy's suicide attempt.

The judge reminded Reddington whom he was supposed to be speaking to.

"Counsel, address the jury," Sullivan shot at Reddington.

All of the jurors are focused on Reddington as he calmly begins closing arguments. He is speaking in a much softer tone, and away from the microphone, so it's hard to hear him, but he's addressing the jury directly.

Meanwhile, Clancy is visibly emotional, crying and wiping her eyes. One juror is also wiping her eyes and appears to be crying, and two other female jurors appear to look emotional, as well.

Reddington is playing at the jury's heartstrings by emphasizing Clancy's life before the murders of her children.

"This young lady did nothing wrong in her life," the defense attorney said. "She was a nurse, a daughter, a wife, and a darn good mother."

He showed photographs of Clancy with her children, including a Facebook post of Clancy smiling with her son.

"They would have you think she killed him first, cruelly because she didn't like him," Reddington said. "That is repulsive."

Lindsay Clancy's defense decries 'lousy medical care she got' in closing argument

05:41

Reddington showed two photos to the jury: One of a happy Massachusetts family, the Clancys, and one of the aftermath of the killings.

How did that family get from here to there, he asked?

"Because of the damn medicine and the lousy medical care that she got," Reddington asserted.

Cora, Dawson and Callan.

"They are the victims of the horrible, horrific act that has been laid at your feet as jurors to decide whether or not Lindsay is guilty," Reddington said in his closing argument.

Reddington held up photos of the family as he spoke.

Immediately after Sullivan wrapped up jury instructions, defense attorney Reddington jumped right into his closing arguments.

Addressing the jury directly, Reddington began by thanking jurors for taking time out of their lives to serve on this trial.

In order to convict Clancy of first-degree murder in the killing of her children, Sullivan said there must be an element of "extreme atrocity or cruelty."

"Extreme atrocity means an act that is extremely wicked or brutal, appalling, horrifying, or utterly revolting," Sullivan told jurors. "Extreme cruelty means that the defendant caused the person’s death by a method that surpassed the cruelty inherent in the taking of a human life."

In their deciding how to convict Clancy, the jury "must determine whether the method or means of killing is so shocking as to amount to murder with extreme atrocity or cruelty," Sullivan said.

Sullivan explained to the jury this morning the decision they will have to make.

If the prosecution, representing the commonwealth of Massachusetts, has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy was not suffering from a "mental disease or defect" at the time she killed her children, it has satisfied the burden of proving that Clancy was criminally responsible, Sullivan explained.

Conversely, if the prosecution has not satisfied that burden beyond a reasonable doubt, Sullivan told jurors they must consider whether, as a result of the mental disease or defect, "the defendant lacked the substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law," he said.

Sullivan also pointed out that the mental disease or defect "need not fit into a formal medical diagnosis" — important in a case that has largely debated whether postpartum psychosis is a formal psychological diagnosis.

Sullivan kicked off court today by explaining the jury instructions and outlining how the day will look.

After he concludes, the court will move into closing arguments. After that, the jury will get more instructions, and then jurors can start deliberating.

Roughly six rows are filled by media, with rows expanded today to allow for more journalists.

Lindsay Clancy is in powder-blue long sleeves and doesn’t look behind her.

Clancy’s parents are back in the courtroom and also looking straight ahead. Her father is dressed in a yellow collared shirt and dark pants. Her mother is in a black-and-white striped top and light-colored pants

Day 22 of the Clancy murder trial is underway.

Today, onlookers can expect closing arguments from both the prosecution and the defense — the last words the jury gets to hear before determining whether Clancy is criminally responsible for killing her three children in her Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in 2023.

It remains unclear whether the judge will have jurors begin deliberations today or whether he will send them home after closing arguments, stretching the trial into tomorrow.

Not a single empty seat today after press and spectators are allowed into the courtroom.

Reddington, a defense attorney for Lindsay Clancy, is surrounded by press as he arrives during Clancy’s murder trial at the Plymouth County Superior Court today.

Joseph Prezioso / AFP via Getty Images

The line to get into the courtroom today reached the parking lot and was filled with a combination of press and the general public.

There is much anticipation for closing arguments today, and potentially a verdict, in this case that has captured the nation's attention.

The line outside the courthouse today.  NBC News

Yesterday capped testimony in the highly emotional, weekslong trial of Lindsay Clancy.

Michael Musgrove, the father of Lindsay Clancy, listens to testimony yesterday. Greg Derr / Pool via The Patriot Ledger

Today, both the prosecution and the defense will offer their closing arguments to the jury, which then has to decide whether Clancy is criminally responsible for killing her three children.

Lindsay Clancy in Plymouth Superior Court yesterday. Greg Derr / Pool via The Patriot Ledger

Clancy did not take the stand in her own defense but became overcome with emotion multiple times over the course of the trial.

Judge William Sullivan listens to attorney Kevin Reddington yesterday. Greg Derr / Pool via The Patriot Ledger

Clancy supporters have filled the pews inside a Plymouth courtroom every day for the last few weeks as her murder trial has become national news. On the last day of testimony, spectators queued outside of court with the hopes of getting a seat for the trial's final moments.

Today will be a hot seat to come by, with closing arguments and a potential verdict expected. The line today stretches into the parking lot, a stark increase from the last few days.

Lindsay Clancy’s lawyers say a rare — and serious — mental health condition caused the 36-year-old to kill her three children. So what is postpartum psychosis, and why is it so difficult to diagnose and treat?

What is postpartum psychosis? The mental health condition is at the center of the Lindsay Clancy trial

03:52

Three mothers who survived postpartum psychosis describe their experiences with the condition — and what they want people following the Lindsay Clancy trial to know.

“I honestly found my experience humbling because it was a reminder that psychosis does not care about your status or your age or your socioeconomic position,” Ayana Lage, 33, said about her 2020 experience. “It can truly happen to anyone.”

Read the full story here.

04:39

Witness testimony concluded in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial, with closing arguments and jury deliberations to follow in the coming days. NBC Boston’s Sue O’Connell reports.

Superior Court Judge William Sullivan went over the jury instructions with both parties yesterday ahead of today’s closing statements.

The parties largely agreed on the instructions for first-degree murder, with prosecutors signing off on language that the charges are for “deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty.”

But the defense pushed for instructions for involuntary manslaughter as a lesser charge the jury may agree on if it cannot decide on the three murder charges.

Prosecutors objected to the involuntary manslaughter instructions, as well as a defense request to include instructions about a Bowden charge, which lets the jury know the police investigation was not sufficient. The two parties did agree on eliminating references to “voluntary intoxication.”

The judge ended court yesterday by asking both parties how long their closing arguments might take.

Reddington told Sullivan, “I’m usually pretty quick. I would say half an hour.”

Prosecutors said they are likely to take an hour.

After five weeks and about 80 witnesses, closing arguments are set to begin today in the murder trial against Lindsay Clancy.

The trial at Plymouth Superior Court is set to resume around 9 a.m. ET, when the prosecution and defense will each make their final case before the jury begins deliberations. If convicted of murder, Clancy faces a mandatory life sentence.