The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has overturned Latarsha Sanders‘ murder convictions and ordered a new trial in the deaths of her two sons. The court ruled that jurors were improperly denied psychiatric records relevant to her insanity defense. The ruling does not determine that Sanders was legally insane or entitled to acquittal.

Sanders admitted killing her sons but argued that severe mental illness and psychosis made her legally not responsible. The decision means a retrial could include medical evidence that was unavailable to the first jury.

Court orders a new trial for Latarsha Sanders

Latarsha Sanders, a Brockton, Massachusetts, mother, was convicted in 2022 of killing her sons, 8-year-old Edson “Marlon” Brito and 5-year-old La’Son Brito. She received two concurrent life sentences without parole after William Sullivan presided over the trial in Plymouth Superior Court. In August 2026, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court vacated the convictions and sent the case back for a new trial.

Justice David Gaziano wrote that the killings themselves were not the disputed issue before the jury. The central question was whether Sanders lacked criminal responsibility because of mental illness. The court concluded that excluding records connected to her psychiatric treatment deprived the defense of medical support for that argument.

Psychiatric records become central evidence

The records came from the Massachusetts Correctional Institution in Framingham and a state psychiatric hospital. They included observations of paranoia, hallucinations and delusional thinking, along with diagnoses within the schizophrenia spectrum. A clinical neuropsychologist relied partly on thousands of pages of those records when testifying that Sanders had been “grossly psychotic” at the time of the killings.

Retired Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Jack Lu said the ruling would materially alter the case if it is tried again because a future jury could hear the excluded records. He also cautioned that the decision should not be viewed as proof that the original judge acted improperly under the law as it was understood at the time.

Details of the killings and insanity defense

Prosecutors said Sanders understood that her conduct was wrong. Defense attorneys argued that severe psychosis prevented her from being legally responsible. Evidence described by the court indicated that Sanders had become preoccupied with conspiracy theories involving the Illuminati and expressed fears related to voodoo before the killings.

Investigators said Sanders initially gave conflicting accounts after the deaths. She later told detectives that the stabbings were part of a ritual connected to voodoo and the Illuminati. The defense presented those statements and her psychiatric history to support its claim that she was experiencing a serious mental disorder when the attacks occurred.

Other legal issues the court addressed

The court also considered statements Sanders made describing herself as “evil.” It ruled prosecutors could refer to those statements when addressing whether she understood the moral wrongfulness of her actions. The court cautioned that such evidence could not become a personal attack unrelated to criminal responsibility.

The justices rejected a prosecution theory that Sanders may have borrowed parts of her account from episodes of “Law & Order: SVU,” finding no evidence to support that suggestion. Defense attorney Robert Shaw said excluding the medical evidence denied Sanders a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. Assistant Plymouth County District Attorney Melissa Johnson argued that the records had properly been excluded.

How the ruling could affect a retrial

The ruling does not dismiss the charges or clear Sanders. It requires another trial, where psychiatric records and related testimony may be available to jurors. Prosecutors would still be able to present evidence about Sanders’ statements, conduct and alleged understanding of the wrongfulness of the killings.

The case also shares a mental health context with another Massachusetts proceeding. In September 2026, William Sullivan declared a mistrial in the case against Lindsay Clancy after jurors deadlocked over whether she was criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children.

Summary

The decision changes the evidentiary landscape for any retrial of Latarsha Sanders. Psychiatric records tied to diagnoses, treatment and reported psychosis give the defense a broader basis for arguing that Sanders lacked criminal responsibility. The prosecution will retain the opportunity to challenge that claim.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?

The court vacated Sanders’ murder convictions and ordered a new trial because psychiatric records relevant to her insanity defense were excluded.

Does the ruling mean Sanders was found legally insane?

No. The ruling addressed the evidence available to the jury and did not decide whether Sanders was legally insane or entitled to acquittal.

What evidence could be introduced in a retrial?

A future jury could hear psychiatric records documenting treatment, diagnoses, paranoia, hallucinations and delusional thinking, subject to decisions by the trial court.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

Michael P. Desronvil, the lone juror who opposed an insanity verdict for Lindsay Clancy, says he never wavered during deliberations. His account conflicts with fellow jurors who said he appeared to acknowledge reasonable doubt but still refused to join them. The jury deadlocked 11-1, leading the judge to declare a mistrial. Prosecutors are now weighing whether to seek a retrial as Clancy’s case returns to court.

Holdout juror rejects claims of uncertainty

In a public statement, Michael P. Desronvil disputed fellow jurors’ descriptions of his position during the trial in Plymouth Superior Court in Massachusetts. He said he did not have doubts about the prosecution’s case and maintained that the evidence showed Lindsay Clancy knew what she was doing when she killed her three children in January 2023.

“I didn’t have any doubts. As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence present.”

Desronvil said physical evidence, testimony from key witnesses and the prosecution’s presentation persuaded him that Clancy understood and planned her actions. His statement directly challenges accounts from other jurors, who said he seemed to recognize reasonable doubt but nevertheless declined to support an insanity finding.

How the 11-1 deadlock produced a mistrial

The jury was considering whether Clancy should be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Eleven jurors supported that outcome, while Desronvil stood alone in favor of a conviction, according to the account of the deliberations. Because the panel could not reach a unanimous verdict, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial.

The decision ended the first trial without a final resolution of Clancy’s criminal responsibility. The sealed identities and questionnaires of the jurors were ordered protected because of safety concerns connected to the high-profile proceedings. The disagreement among jurors has since become central to public discussion of whether another panel could reach a unanimous decision.

The competing prosecution and defense arguments

Lindsay Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse, admitted killing her children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months. Her defense argued that severe mental illness made her not criminally responsible at the time of the killings and sought a verdict based on insanity.

Prosecutors argued that Clancy planned the murders and understood that her actions were wrong. Desronvil’s statement aligns with that position, saying the evidence demonstrated that she knew exactly what she was doing. The 11-1 split shows that most jurors accepted the defense position, but the lone holdout prevented the required unanimous result.

Prosecutors face a difficult retrial decision

Plymouth County prosecutors are weighing whether to bring the case before another jury. A retrial would require prosecutors to persuade all jurors to reject Clancy’s insanity defense, a challenge after the first panel strongly favored the defense’s position.

Legal analyst Jonathan Turley said prosecutors must consider whether a future Massachusetts jury could unanimously rule against Clancy. He also said abandoning the case would carry its own difficulties because three children died. Clancy’s attorneys have raised the possibility of resolving the case without another jury trial, but no final agreement has been announced.

What happens next in the case

Lindsay Clancy is scheduled to return to court on September 29, while prosecutors decide whether to seek a retrial. The court date provides an opportunity for the parties to address the next procedural step, including whether the case will proceed toward another trial or whether negotiations will continue.

The jurors’ sealed information remains protected, and the conflicting descriptions of deliberations do not change the mistrial result. Any future proceeding would again focus on whether Clancy was criminally responsible and whether prosecutors can prove their position beyond the required legal standard.

Summary

The first trial ended without a verdict after one juror rejected an insanity finding supported by the other 11. His public response disputes claims that he wavered, while prosecutors must decide whether another jury can resolve the case unanimously. The next significant court date is September 29.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why was the trial declared a mistrial?

The jury could not reach a unanimous decision. Eleven jurors supported finding Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, while one juror opposed that outcome.

What does the holdout juror say?

Michael P. Desronvil says he never doubted that prosecutors proved Clancy knew what she was doing and planned the killings.

What is the next scheduled court date?

Clancy is due back in court on September 29 as prosecutors consider whether to seek a retrial.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

Prosecutors in Massachusetts are weighing whether to retry Lindsay Clancy after jurors deadlocked in her murder case. The first trial ended without a unanimous verdict as the defense argued that mental illness or defect made Clancy not criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children. A potential plea deal appears difficult because her attorney has rejected any agreement involving prison time. Clancy is scheduled to return to court on Sept. 29.

The case centers on the January 2023 deaths of Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, at the family’s home in Duxbury, Massachusetts. The defense does not dispute that Clancy strangled the children with exercise bands before attempting suicide. She survived a fall from a second-story window and is now paralyzed.

Why the first trial ended without a verdict

The murder trial ended in a mistrial after the jury failed to reach the unanimous decision required for a conviction. The reported division was 11-1, with one juror favoring a guilty verdict. The central issue was not whether the children died by strangulation, a fact the defense does not contest, but whether Clancy was criminally responsible for the killings.

Clancy, 36, was a former delivery room nurse when the children died in the family’s Duxbury home in January 2023. Her attorney, Kevin J. Reddington, has argued that a mental illness or defect prevented her from being held criminally responsible. The defense position makes a second trial dependent on persuading another jury to reject that insanity defense.

The prosecution’s retrial dilemma

Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz must decide whether to pursue a second trial or seek another resolution. A retrial could allow prosecutors to present the murder case again, but it would also recreate the challenge of securing 12 jurors willing to unanimously reject Clancy’s defense.

Legal analyst Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor, said prosecutors must weigh the risk of another deadlocked proceeding against the consequences of ending the case. Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani said negotiation may be worth considering, while also describing an agreement as unlikely because of the defense’s stated opposition to incarceration.

“The question is whether they could ever get a jury, particularly in Massachusetts, that would unanimously vote against this defendant.”

The defense position on a possible deal

Reddington has said he is open to discussions, but he has rejected any deal that would send Clancy to prison. He said he would prefer prosecutors to reduce the top charge to second-degree murder and allow the case to be decided in a bench trial, meaning a judge rather than a jury would determine the outcome.

Under that approach, the defense would seek a punishment such as probation or a response centered on mental and physical treatment. Reddington has also said prosecutors could dismiss the case, although that outcome would end the criminal prosecution rather than resolve it through a conviction. The defense has not disputed the children’s deaths, but it continues to argue that Clancy’s mental condition is central to the case.

“I would like to see Tim Cruz reduce it to a second-degree so we could possibly waive a jury and try the case before a judge.”

Jury privacy and the next court date

Judge William Sullivan has ordered the identities of jurors from the mistrial to remain impounded indefinitely. He also ordered the confidential juror questionnaires to remain sealed for at least 10 days. The judge cited threats and concerns about juror safety.

The order comes as prosecutors and the defense consider their next steps and as public attention remains focused on the case. Clancy is due back in court on Sept. 29, when the parties may address the status of a retrial or other potential resolution.

What a retrial or resolution could mean

A retrial would require prosecutors to present the charges again and persuade a new jury to reach a unanimous verdict. First-degree murder carries no possibility of parole in Massachusetts, while second-degree murder can carry the possibility of parole. Those distinctions help explain why the defense is seeking a reduction in the top charge and opposing prison time.

The legal dispute therefore remains focused on criminal responsibility, punishment and the practical likelihood of obtaining a unanimous verdict. Prosecutors must balance the seriousness of the deaths with the possibility that a second jury could reach the same impasse as the first.

Summary

The prosecution faces a difficult choice between retrying a case that already produced a deadlocked jury and negotiating with a defense that will not accept incarceration. The next stage will depend on whether prosecutors pursue a new jury trial, revise the charges or consider another form of resolution.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did Lindsay Clancy’s first trial end in a mistrial?

Jurors reportedly split 11-1 and could not reach the unanimous verdict required to convict. The central dispute involved Clancy’s insanity defense.

What does the defense want?

Reddington has said he would consider a reduced second-degree murder charge and a bench trial, but he has rejected any agreement involving prison time.

When is Clancy due back in court?

Clancy is scheduled to appear in court on Sept. 29 as the parties consider the case’s next steps.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

Lindsay Clancy’s defense team is preparing several legal challenges as prosecutors consider whether to retry her after a jury deadlocked in her Massachusetts murder case. Attorney Kevin J. Reddington said he plans to argue that a retrial would violate Clancy’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy. If that effort fails, he wants reduced charges, a judge-only trial and a sentence centered on psychiatric treatment rather than prison. Clancy has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity in connection with the 2023 deaths of her three children.

The Norfolk Superior Court jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict after seven weeks of testimony, leading Judge William Sullivan to declare a mistrial last week. Prosecutors have not announced whether they will bring the case back to court. Reddington also defended his criticism of the lone juror who opposed the other 11 jurors and acknowledged that some of his post-trial comments about the district attorney went too far.

Defense plans double jeopardy challenge

Reddington said his first priority is a motion expected later in September arguing that Clancy cannot be tried again. His position is that the mistrial was declared over the defense’s objection, which he believes triggers constitutional protection against being prosecuted twice for the same offense. The argument will be presented in the Massachusetts court handling the case and will seek to prevent prosecutors from convening another jury.

The issue follows the jury’s failure to agree on a unanimous verdict after seven weeks of evidence and deliberations. A ruling on the defense motion would determine whether prosecutors may proceed before any new trial date is set.

Treatment sought instead of incarceration

Reddington said he wants any eventual resolution to focus on Clancy’s mental and physical health rather than imprisonment. He would oppose a sentence sending her to Framingham State Prison and instead seek probation combined with mandatory psychiatric treatment in a secure facility.

The proposal is connected to Clancy’s plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. Reddington said his objective is for the legal system to address the care he believes she needs while maintaining appropriate security. Prosecutors have not publicly agreed to that approach, and their decision on whether to retry the case remains pending.

“I would like to see Tim reduce it to a second degree… and fashion something where Lindsay gets the mental, physical help that she needs rather than criminal prosecution.”

Reduced charges could lead to bench trial

If the double jeopardy challenge is unsuccessful, Reddington said he hopes District Attorney Tim Cruz will reduce the charges to second-degree murder. That change, he said, could allow Clancy to waive her right to a jury trial and have a judge decide the case.

A bench trial would place fact-finding responsibility with the judge rather than another jury. Reddington described the possible arrangement as part of an effort to avoid a new jury proceeding and reach an outcome involving supervision and psychiatric care. No such agreement has been announced.

Lawyer defends criticism of holdout juror

Reddington stood by comments criticizing the lone juror who did not join the other 11 panel members. He said he was angry because he believed the juror refused to follow the law and that the disagreement deprived the other jurors of the result of their seven-week service. He rejected accusations that his remarks were intended to intimidate the juror.

The attorney said his position would have been different if the juror had simply disagreed with the other panel members about the evidence. In that circumstance, he said, he would defend the juror’s right to maintain an independent view because that is part of the jury system.

Concessions follow calls for political intervention

Reddington renewed his call for President Donald Trump to speak with Cruz and urge him not to pursue another trial. He argued that such a conversation would not be improper because the decision to retry Clancy rests with the district attorney, describing it as an executive decision. There is no indication that Trump has contacted Cruz about the case.

Reddington also acknowledged that two earlier public statements were inappropriate. He said he regretted accusing Cruz of not knowing the names of Clancy’s children and said he should have used different words after claiming he had “crushed” the district attorney at trial. He said he should instead have stated that he believed the defense presented the stronger case while recognizing that the prosecution carried the burden of proof.

Summary

The defense strategy combines a constitutional challenge, possible negotiations over reduced charges and a treatment-focused sentencing proposal. The next major development is expected when the court considers whether a retrial is legally permissible. Until prosecutors announce their decision, Clancy’s case remains unresolved after the mistrial.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why was Lindsay Clancy’s trial declared a mistrial?

The Norfolk Superior Court jury could not reach a unanimous verdict after seven weeks of testimony and deliberations, so Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial.

What legal argument does Clancy’s defense plan to make?

Attorney Kevin J. Reddington plans to argue that a retrial would violate Clancy’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy because the mistrial was declared over the defense’s objection.

What outcome is the defense seeking?

The defense is seeking to avoid prison and pursue psychiatric treatment in a secure facility, potentially combined with probation. Reddington also wants charges reduced to second-degree murder and may seek a bench trial.

Have prosecutors decided whether to retry Clancy?

No. Prosecutors have not announced whether they will pursue another trial.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

The Lindsay Clancy murder trial in Massachusetts ended in a mistrial after jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict. Eleven jurors favored finding Clancy not criminally responsible, while one juror supported criminal responsibility. The case concerns the deaths of Clancy’s three young children in January 2023 and her defense that postpartum psychosis affected her legal responsibility. Her attorneys have filed a motion seeking a not guilty finding that would prevent a retrial.

Jury deadlock ends the Massachusetts trial

The trial ended in a mistrial last week after jurors could not agree on a unanimous verdict. Clancy was accused of strangling her three children in January 2023 after her husband, Patrick, left the family home to collect medication and takeout.

When Patrick returned, he found Clancy injured outside the home after an apparent suicide attempt. The children were unconscious in the basement. Two died that night, while the third was taken by air to a Boston hospital and died several days later.

The jury’s disagreement concerned whether Clancy was criminally responsible, not whether she caused the children’s deaths. Her defense did not dispute that she killed them, but argued that severe mental illness prevented criminal responsibility.

Defense relies on postpartum psychosis claim

Clancy’s attorneys argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis when the killings occurred. They said the condition affected her ability to understand or control her conduct and that she should be found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, Massachusetts’ version of an insanity defense.

Prosecutors argued that Clancy remained criminally responsible despite evidence of mental illness. Jurors therefore had to assess evidence about her mental state, the legal standard and the circumstances surrounding the children’s deaths.

Juror Paula, 65, said the majority believed Clancy needed help and that the healthcare system had failed her and her family. She said the case also showed the need for stronger support and education about postpartum mental health conditions.

“We all tried to help each other. It was hard to separate the children from what our task was, and it was very emotional,” Paula said.

Juror describes emotional deliberations

Paula said jurors received 297 pieces of evidence, including Patrick’s emotional 911 call. She said some jurors found the call difficult to hear while reviewing the case.

According to Paula, an initial poll showed that eight jurors favored a finding of no criminal responsibility, two supported a guilty verdict and two were undecided. She said the panel did not begin deliberations with an 11-to-1 split.

The majority ultimately concluded that Clancy was not criminally responsible. Paula said jurors struggled to reconcile that view with the holdout juror, who continued to favor criminal responsibility. She said the evidence made it difficult to separate the tragedy from the legal question before the panel.

Dispute centers on reasonable doubt

The foreperson told the judge that the jury could not reach a verdict and alleged that the holdout was refusing to apply the law concerning reasonable doubt. Judge William Sullivan questioned jurors individually about whether they could follow the instructions, and they reportedly said they could.

Paula said the majority believed the holdout had acknowledged doubts about the case at various points. In her view, those doubts should have prevented convictions for first-degree murder, second-degree murder or manslaughter under the court’s instructions.

“Everybody says you’re not supposed to feel like you failed, but you have a task to come out unanimous. And we tried everything we could to get to that end. And I feel like we let down Lindsay,” Paula said.

Paula said deliberations might have restarted with an alternate juror if the holdout had provided evidence supporting his reasoning. Juror Kellie Farina also discussed the disagreement and said the holdout had difficulty moving beyond the fact that Clancy killed her children.

Defense seeks to block a retrial

On Thursday, Clancy’s defense filed a motion arguing that prosecutors failed to meet their burden of proof. The filing asks the judge to enter a required finding of not guilty, which the defense says would prevent the state from retrying the case.

The motion follows the mistrial and accounts of the jury’s division. Its outcome will determine whether the case moves toward another trial or ends with a court-ordered acquittal. The defense continues to rely on postpartum psychosis, while prosecutors maintain that Clancy should be held accountable under Massachusetts law.

Summary

The mistrial leaves the Lindsay Clancy case unresolved. Most jurors accepted the defense position on criminal responsibility, but one juror’s contrary view prevented a unanimous verdict. The judge must consider the defense motion for a required finding of not guilty, while further proceedings depend on the court’s ruling.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did the Lindsay Clancy trial end in a mistrial?

The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. Eleven jurors favored finding Clancy not criminally responsible, while one favored criminal responsibility.

What was Clancy’s defense?

Her attorneys argued that postpartum psychosis and severe mental illness left her not criminally responsible for killing her three children.

What motion did the defense file?

The defense asked the judge to enter a required finding of not guilty, arguing that prosecutors failed to meet their burden. It says that ruling would prevent a retrial.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

Corie A. Walsh, an Illinois mother charged with killing her 2-year-old son, is facing competing accounts of her mental state as her defense raises psychosis and prosecutors allege she planned to poison her husband. Her attorneys also say she is not receiving prescribed psychiatric medication in the Will County jail. The case is expected to focus on whether severe mental illness could meet Illinois’ legal standard for insanity. Walsh was charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the death of her son, Barrett.

Defense says Walsh experienced a psychotic episode

Andrea Lyon, a prominent defense attorney representing 38-year-old Corie A. Walsh, said Walsh was experiencing a psychotic episode when her son died. The defense position places Walsh’s mental condition at the center of the case and seeks to explain the circumstances surrounding the alleged killing.

Walsh was arrested after the death of her 2-year-old son and was also treated at Silver Cross Hospital for self-inflicted wounds to her wrists and thighs. Her attorneys say hospital doctors recommended continuous psychiatric care after her discharge. The defense has not publicly provided a full account of Walsh’s diagnosis or treatment history.

“It is also a tragedy in that Corie herself was experiencing a psychotic episode at the time this happened.”

Illinois insanity standards will shape the case

The legal question is not simply whether Walsh had a psychiatric diagnosis. Richard S. Kling, a clinical professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, said Illinois courts examine whether a mental disease or defect prevented a defendant from appreciating the criminality of the conduct at the time of the alleged offense.

That determination generally requires evidence about the defendant’s mental condition before, during and after the alleged crime. Illinois also allows a verdict of guilty but mentally ill, which is separate from a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity. The defense would need to present evidence addressing the legal standard, while prosecutors could challenge whether Walsh understood the nature or wrongfulness of her actions.

Jail medication dispute adds to mental health battle

Walsh’s attorneys allege that she is not receiving prescribed psychiatric medication while held at the Will County Adult Detention Facility. They say the medication was recommended after her hospital treatment and that doctors advised around-the-clock psychiatric care when she left the hospital.

The dispute could affect both Walsh’s current ability to participate in her defense and the broader examination of her mental state. The Will County Sheriff’s Office, which oversees the jail, had not responded to questions about her medical treatment as of the report’s publication. The available information does not establish why the medication was allegedly withheld or whether officials dispute the defense account.

Prosecutors allege a plan to poison Walsh’s husband

In addition to the three first-degree murder counts, prosecutors allege Walsh had been planning to poison her husband, Michael Walsh, before their son’s death. Court filings cited in the case do not publicly detail how far the alleged plan progressed or identify a substance involved.

Michael Walsh was traveling out of state when the child was killed and returned home that evening. Prosecutors may argue that evidence of planning or concealment could indicate an understanding that conduct was criminal. Such evidence would not by itself resolve the insanity question, which depends on Walsh’s mental state at the time of the alleged offense.

Investigators examine Walsh’s background and case fixation

A petition seeking to deny Walsh pretrial release alleges that she told police she killed the toddler because she believed he was the “devil.” Witnesses also told investigators that Walsh had become highly interested in the Massachusetts case involving Lindsay Clancy, a mother charged with killing her three children during an alleged episode of postpartum psychosis.

According to the allegations, Walsh sent friends messages about the Clancy case as late as 12:30 p.m. on the day her son died. Investigators are examining whether that interest provides context for Walsh’s conduct or reflects a broader mental health history. The defense is also seeking information about prior warning signs, isolation, psychiatric treatment and medication, while public-records requests have been made for police dispatch logs and wellness checks linked to her residences.

Summary

The case combines a serious homicide prosecution with a developing dispute over Walsh’s psychiatric condition and jail treatment. Her defense is expected to rely on evidence about psychosis, medication and prior mental health history, while prosecutors may emphasize the alleged poisoning plan and other conduct as evidence relevant to criminal responsibility. The competing accounts will be tested through court proceedings, expert evaluations and further investigation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What charges does Corie Walsh face?

Walsh faces three counts of first-degree murder in connection with the death of her 2-year-old son.

What is the defense claiming about Walsh’s mental state?

Her defense attorney says Walsh was experiencing a psychotic episode when the child died and that she needs ongoing psychiatric care and prescribed medication.

Why is the alleged poisoning plan important?

Prosecutors may argue that planning or attempting to conceal conduct can indicate an understanding of its criminality. The allegation remains part of the prosecution’s account and has not been fully detailed publicly.

How will Illinois law assess an insanity defense?

Illinois courts consider whether a mental disease or defect prevented the defendant from appreciating the criminality of the conduct at the time of the alleged offense. A psychiatric diagnosis alone does not determine the legal outcome.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

Three jurors who served in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial have spoken publicly after a Massachusetts jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict. The foreperson said one juror acknowledged having reasonable doubt but still refused to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury deadlocked after about 40 hours of deliberations over six and a half days, prompting a judge to declare a mistrial. It remains unclear whether prosecutors will seek a retrial.

Clancy, a Massachusetts mother, is accused of killing her three young children in January 2023. She admitted to the killings but pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, while prosecutors argued that she was criminally responsible for the deaths.

Jury deadlock and mistrial

The mistrial was declared in Plymouth, Massachusetts, after jurors told the court they were hopelessly deadlocked. The panel had deliberated for roughly 40 hours across six and a half days before concluding that it could not produce a unanimous verdict. The judge’s decision ended the trial without a determination of whether Clancy was criminally responsible for the deaths of her children.

The deadlock followed a closely watched prosecution in which the central question was Clancy’s mental state at the time of the January 2023 killings. A mistrial does not resolve the criminal charges. Instead, it leaves the case open to possible further proceedings, depending on the decision of prosecutors and the court.

Foreperson’s account of reasonable doubt

The foreperson said one juror, identified by other members as the lone holdout, acknowledged having reasonable doubt during deliberations. According to the foreperson, that admission initially appeared to move the panel toward completing the verdict forms. The juror then changed course on the specific question of whether Clancy should be found not guilty by reason of insanity.

“He admitted he had reasonable doubt and I started filling out the forms, I was so excited,” the foreperson said.

“But I’m still not going to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity,” the foreperson recalled the juror saying.

The account was provided in interviews by three jurors who served on the panel, including the foreperson. Their descriptions offer an account of the deliberations but do not replace the court’s formal finding that the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict.

Clancy’s insanity defense

Clancy admitted to killing her three young children but entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. Her defense argued that she was suffering from severe mental illness when the killings occurred in January 2023 and therefore should not be held criminally responsible.

Prosecutors disputed that position and maintained that Clancy was responsible for the deaths. The insanity issue required jurors to assess the evidence concerning her mental condition at the time of the alleged crimes, rather than deciding only whether the killings occurred. The disagreement over that legal conclusion became the decisive issue described by the jurors after the mistrial.

Jurors’ concerns about the holdout

The three jurors said they became increasingly frustrated with the holdout during the deliberations. They alleged that the juror refused to fully consider the views of the rest of the panel, leaving the group unable to reach agreement despite extended discussions in the Plymouth courtroom case.

The foreperson said she wrote a note to the judge expressing concern that one juror had acknowledged reasonable doubt but would not agree to a verdict. The note was part of the events leading to the court’s recognition that the jury remained deadlocked. The juror identified by the others as the holdout did not respond to an effort to obtain comment.

Next steps in the case

The immediate legal consequence of the mistrial is that the case ended without a unanimous verdict. Prosecutors must now determine whether to pursue a new trial, while the defense may continue challenging the case and its handling in court. No decision on a retrial had been publicly confirmed in the account provided.

Kevin Reddington, Clancy’s attorney, has indicated that he is open to a possible resolution and has urged prosecutors to reconsider the case. Any future proceeding would again focus on the charges, the evidence about Clancy’s mental condition and the legal standard for an insanity verdict.

Summary

The mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case followed prolonged deliberations and a reported dispute over the insanity verdict. Jurors described a lone holdout who expressed reasonable doubt but would not support the defense’s proposed outcome. The case remains unresolved, with any retrial decision still pending.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why was the Lindsay Clancy trial declared a mistrial?

The judge declared a mistrial after the jury reported that it was hopelessly deadlocked and could not reach a unanimous verdict.

What did the foreperson say about the holdout juror?

The foreperson said the juror acknowledged having reasonable doubt but still refused to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity.

Will prosecutors retry the case?

It remains unclear whether prosecutors will seek a new trial. No decision on a retrial had been publicly confirmed.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

David Yannetti, a former Karen Read defense attorney, praised Kevin Reddington as jurors in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial continued deliberating without a verdict. The jury completed six days of deliberations and twice informed the court that it could not reach a unanimous decision. Jurors were scheduled to return Friday, Sept. 4, for a seventh day in the Massachusetts case.

Reddington represents Lindsay Clancy, who is charged with murdering her three children at their Duxbury home in January 2023. Yannetti said the wait is among the most difficult stages of a trial because attorneys and their clients have little control once a case reaches the jury.

The cases involving Clancy and Read are factually different, but Yannetti said both drew intense public attention and involved women with no previous criminal records.

Yannetti Identifies With the Pressure Facing Reddington

David Yannetti, who played a prominent role on Karen Read’s defense team during two Massachusetts murder trials, said the Clancy deliberations brought back the stress of waiting for jurors. He said the most difficult stage begins after both sides finish presenting their cases and the jury leaves the courtroom.

“It immediately brings back the stress and the pressure that comes from having somebody’s life in your hands and the very worst part of a trial, which is when the jury’s out,” Yannetti said.

Yannetti said Kevin Reddington appeared confident despite the uncertainty and had performed well while defending Clancy amid severe allegations and intense public scrutiny.

Clancy’s Charges and Possible Verdicts

Lindsay Clancy faces three counts of murder in the deaths of her children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, who was 8 months old. The children died at the family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in January 2023. The trial is being held in Plymouth Superior Court.

The jury may consider first-degree murder, second-degree murder or manslaughter under the evidence and instructions presented at trial. It could also find Clancy not criminally responsible under her insanity defense.

Judge Rejects Request Involving an Alleged Holdout

During the sixth day of deliberations, the jury sent another note to Judge William Sullivan about its inability to reach a unanimous verdict. After reminding jurors that prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, Sullivan directed them to continue working.

Reddington then requested removal of what he described as an apparent single holdout. He said another juror had accused that person of failing to follow the law. Sullivan rejected the request, leaving the jury intact.

Retired Massachusetts Judge Carol Erskine, who is not involved in the case, said disagreement alone does not establish that a juror is refusing to deliberate.

The Jury’s Extended Deliberations

The Clancy jury completed its sixth day on Thursday, Sept. 3, 2026. Court proceedings ended shortly after 4 p.m., and jurors were expected to return Friday morning for day seven. Their notes indicated difficulty reaching unanimity, but they did not end deliberations.

“It’s torture,” Yannetti said. “You’re all just sort of on the frying pan, being cooked.”

Why the Read Comparison Matters

Yannetti said the Read and Clancy cases are not alike in their underlying facts. He identified a narrower connection: both defendants are professional women with no prior court involvement or criminal records before becoming the focus of heavily watched Massachusetts murder proceedings.

Read’s first trial ended with a deadlocked jury after five days of deliberations in 2024. She was acquitted of all homicide-related charges after her second trial in 2025, when jurors deliberated for four days. Yannetti said Reddington had done a wonderful job defending Clancy in what he called a horrific set of facts.

Summary

The prolonged deliberations have highlighted the strain faced by defense lawyers and clients awaiting a verdict. The court declined to intervene in the jury’s disagreement, and deliberations remained active heading into a seventh day.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who represents Lindsay Clancy?

Kevin Reddington represents Clancy in her Plymouth Superior Court murder trial.

How long had the jury deliberated?

The jury had completed six days by Thursday, Sept. 3, 2026, and was scheduled to begin a seventh day Friday.

What charges does Clancy face?

Clancy faces three counts of murder. The jury may also consider second-degree murder, manslaughter and whether she was not criminally responsible under an insanity defense.

Why was a juror removal request rejected?

Judge William Sullivan rejected the request because disagreement is not necessarily a refusal to deliberate.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

The jury in Lindsay Clancy’s Massachusetts murder trial is set to resume deliberations after spending three days weighing her insanity defense. Clancy faces three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her children, who were found strangled at the family’s Duxbury home in January 2023. A retired Massachusetts Superior Court judge said a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity would not necessarily lead to Clancy’s quick release. He said mental health officials and the courts could maintain her commitment for years if she were considered a danger to herself or others.

What the jury is deciding

The nine-woman, three-man jury is considering whether Clancy should be found not guilty by reason of insanity in the deaths of Cora, Dawson and Callan Clancy. The children were all under 6 when they were found strangled at the family’s home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in January 2023. Clancy, 36, has been charged with three counts of first-degree murder.

The jury, led by a female foreperson, completed its third day of deliberations on Monday without reaching a verdict. Its task includes evaluating the evidence presented during the trial and determining whether the legal standard for an insanity defense has been met.

How an insanity verdict could affect Clancy

Retired Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Jack Lu said an insanity verdict would not be an easy path to freedom. Instead, Clancy could be committed to a mental health facility for a substantial period, with her status subject to periodic review.

“If you are committed on a mental health basis because of a major criminal case in Massachusetts, it is hard to get out,” Lu said. “It is very difficult.”

Lu said Clancy could remain hospitalized “year after year after year” if officials concluded that she continued to pose a danger. The length of confinement would therefore depend on clinical assessments and legal decisions rather than on a fixed sentence tied directly to the murder charges.

The role of mental health officials and courts

Under the process described by Lu, mental health officials would periodically review whether Clancy should remain committed. He argued that these officials frequently work alongside prosecutors or testify for the government, which he said may make them more cautious when evaluating a defendant’s release.

“They’re viewed as an arm of the prosecution,” Lu said. “The people making release decisions have a prosecutorial mindset.”

Lu also identified a separate route through the courts. If the government continued seeking Clancy’s commitment while doctors did not recommend release, the matter could proceed to a contested hearing. A judge would then decide whether she remained a danger to herself or others. A ruling in Clancy’s favor could provide another way for her to leave the institution.

Why the case recalls a Maine tragedy

The Clancy case has been compared with that of Constance Fisher, a 24-year-old Maine woman who drowned her three children in a bathtub in 1954. Fisher was committed to a mental hospital and returned home after several years.

In 1967, Fisher was accused of drowning three more children and was sent back to the hospital. She later escaped and was found dead in the Kennebec River. The historical case has been cited as an example of the difficult questions that can arise when a parent accused of killing children is treated through the mental health system and later considered for release.

When deliberations will continue

The jury asked Judge William Sullivan to be dismissed at about 4 p.m. Monday. Sullivan granted the request, and the jurors are scheduled to return Tuesday morning to continue deliberating.

The jury’s eventual decision will determine whether the case ends with a criminal conviction or proceeds under the legal consequences of an insanity verdict. Regardless of the outcome, Lu’s assessment indicates that a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity could still involve prolonged confinement and additional court proceedings.

Summary

The jury’s deliberations center on both Clancy’s criminal responsibility and the consequences of an insanity finding. A verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity could lead to commitment in a mental health facility, periodic reviews and possible court hearings before any release. The case remains unresolved as jurors prepare to continue their discussions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What charges does Lindsay Clancy face?

Clancy faces three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her children, Cora, Dawson and Callan.

What would an insanity verdict mean?

It could result in Clancy being committed to a mental health facility rather than receiving a conventional criminal sentence. Her confinement could continue as long as officials or a court determined that she remained a danger.

How could Clancy eventually be released?

Mental health officials could recommend release, or Clancy could seek relief through a contested court hearing in which a judge would assess whether she remained dangerous to herself or others.

When will the jury resume deliberations?

The jury is scheduled to return Tuesday morning after asking to be dismissed at about 4 p.m. Monday.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

Andrea Faust, a 41-year-old North Carolina mother, is accused of killing her 3-year-old son and attempting to kill her younger son. Her attorneys plan to pursue insanity and diminished-capacity defenses. They say a defense expert concluded that Faust could not distinguish right from wrong during the alleged offenses. The case has drawn comparisons to the Massachusetts trial of Lindsay Clancy, whose defense has focused on postpartum psychosis and criminal responsibility.

Charges and planned defenses in North Carolina

Andrea Faust faces murder and attempted-murder charges stemming from events at her Durham, North Carolina, home on February 12, 2026. Prosecutors allege that her 3-year-old son died and that her 23-month-old son was the target of an attempted killing. Her attorneys notified the court that they intend to rely on pleas of not guilty by reason of insanity and diminished capacity.

The filing does not establish that Faust was legally insane or that her capacity was diminished. Her attorney, Nicole Galinsky, said a defense expert determined that Faust could not distinguish right from wrong during the alleged killings. Another evaluation is expected to examine her mental state when the offenses allegedly occurred.

Comparison with Lindsay Clancy’s case

The North Carolina case is being discussed alongside the Massachusetts prosecution of Lindsay Clancy, who has pleaded not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility in the 2023 deaths of her three children. Clancy’s defense has argued that she experienced postpartum psychosis, while prosecutors have maintained that she understood her actions and acted deliberately.

Galinsky said the cases are similar in the women’s reported mental-health struggles and descriptions of them as devoted mothers before the alleged killings. She emphasized that Faust was not suffering from postpartum psychosis. She cited hallucinations, hospitalizations and efforts to obtain medical help as areas of comparison while acknowledging that the cases are not identical.

The role of mental-health evaluations

Faust was found incapable of proceeding to trial in March after court records raised concerns about her mental health and safety. Central Regional Hospital later determined that she was capable of proceeding as of May 21. Those findings concern present competency, while the planned criminal-responsibility evaluation will focus on her condition when the alleged crimes occurred.

A defendant may be competent to understand proceedings and assist an attorney while raising a separate claim about mental illness at the time of an offense. The court and any eventual jury would determine the weight of expert evidence under North Carolina law.

Questions about insanity defenses

Jack Lu, a retired Massachusetts Superior Court judge, said the Clancy proceedings could lead more defendants to present mental-health or criminal-responsibility defenses. He said the legal system and public have not fully understood how postpartum mental illness can affect behavior and judgments about culpability.

Lu cautioned that such defenses are usually unsuccessful and may face particular difficulty when children are alleged victims. He nevertheless said mental-health evidence should receive serious consideration when it may explain conduct or reduce moral blame. A retired Massachusetts judge also said similar defenses could receive greater attention as the Clancy case continues to draw public interest.

What happens next

For Faust, the next major steps include additional mental-health assessment and litigation over the planned defenses. The court will consider competency, expert testimony and whether the evidence supports an insanity or diminished-capacity claim.

In Massachusetts, jurors in Lindsay Clancy‘s case completed a second day of deliberations on Friday without reaching a verdict and were scheduled to return Monday morning. Clancy is charged with three counts of murder in connection with the deaths of her children at the family’s Duxbury home in 2023. The outcome may influence public discussion of postpartum mental illness, but it will not determine the legal result in Faust’s separate North Carolina case.

Summary

The Faust case places mental illness, criminal responsibility and public safety before the North Carolina courts. Although its facts differ from the Clancy prosecution, both cases have intensified scrutiny of how the justice system evaluates severe mental-health conditions in mothers accused of harming their children. Expert evidence and court rulings will determine how Faust’s planned defenses proceed.

Frequently Asked Questions

What charges does Andrea Faust face?

Faust is charged with murder in the death of her 3-year-old son and attempted murder involving her 23-month-old son in Durham, North Carolina.

What defenses do Faust’s attorneys plan to use?

They plan to rely on not guilty by reason of insanity and diminished capacity. A defense expert reportedly concluded that Faust could not distinguish right from wrong during the alleged offenses.

How is the case connected to Lindsay Clancy’s trial?

Both cases involve mothers accused of killing or attempting to kill their children and disputes over serious mental illness and criminal responsibility. Faust’s attorney has stressed that the cases are not identical, including that Faust was not suffering from postpartum psychosis.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.