PLYMOUTH, MA — Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother accused of strangling her three young children, is willing to formally admit in writing to killing them if a judge agrees to split her upcoming murder trial into two phases, her defense attorney revealed in new court filings.
The 35-year-old former labor and delivery nurse faces three counts each of murder and strangulation in the January 24, 2023 deaths of her children: 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington filed the motion for reconsideration last week in Plymouth Superior Court, one week after Judge William F. Sullivan denied the initial request to bifurcate the trial. If successful, the strategy would allow the defense to focus solely on Clancy’s mental state rather than whether she committed the acts.
Reddington wrote in court papers that Clancy “is willing to stipulate formally in writing to her involvement in the underlying conduct resulting in the death of the three young children.” The defense has long indicated it will pursue an insanity defense, arguing Clancy was suffering from severe postpartum depression and was overmedicated at the time of the killings. Court records show she had been prescribed 13 different psychiatric medications, including Zoloft, Prozac, Valium, Ativan, Klonopin, Trazodone and Seroquel. “The defendant submits that the only live issue for consideration at trial would be the defendant’s state of mind as it relates to the defense of lack of criminal responsibility,” Reddington stated in the filing.
Prosecutors from the Plymouth District Attorney’s Office continue to oppose splitting the trial and have rejected Clancy’s offer to stipulate to the deaths. “The government will not agree to any stipulations of fact regarding the violent and painful murders of Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy, or Callan Clancy,” prosecutors wrote in their reply filing. They argue they have the right to present evidence to a jury of Clancy’s guilt rather than rely on an admission. Judge Sullivan previously ruled that evidence of extreme atrocity or cruelty needed to prove first-degree murder could be properly considered on the issue of criminal responsibility in a single trial. Prosecutor Jennifer L. Sprague argued that by mounting a defense of lack of criminal responsibility, Clancy has essentially waived her right against self-incrimination.
The killings occurred on the evening of January 24, 2023, at the family’s home on Summer Street in Duxbury. According to court documents spanning nearly 300 pages, Clancy had taken one of her children to a pediatrician appointment earlier that day and contacted a CVS pharmacy about a prescription. She ordered takeout from a restaurant and used Apple Maps to calculate travel time from her home before asking her husband Patrick to pick up the food and medication, leaving her alone with the children. Authorities allege she used exercise bands to strangle all three children before cutting her wrists and neck and jumping from a second-story window in a failed suicide attempt. Patrick Clancy returned home to silence, found blood on the floor and an open window, then discovered his wife outside with injuries.
Legal experts suggest the defense strategy aims to avoid graphic testimony about the killings. Suffolk Law professor and former prosecutor Christina Miller said if prosecutors agreed to a stipulation, the judge would read agreed-upon facts to the jury, which would likely be “colder and more clinical” than testimony from first responders or other witnesses. Investigators executed multiple search warrants and collected items from the home, including exercise bands, medications, electronic devices, notebooks, clothing and a knife. Previously unsealed records detail Clancy’s methodical actions in the hours before the killings, including her use of mapping technology to time her husband’s absence. Patrick Clancy had previously told a family friend he was concerned his wife may have been experiencing withdrawal from anxiety medication in the weeks before the tragedy.
Clancy remains paralyzed from the chest down following her suicide attempt and is being held at Tewksbury State Hospital, where she continues to receive psychiatric treatment under constant supervision. She appeared in court in February for her first in-person hearing, sitting quietly in a wheelchair during proceedings focused on scheduling and mental health discovery compliance. “She’s a loving mother, always has been,” Paula Musgrove, Clancy’s mother, said after that hearing. Both Clancy and her husband have filed separate malpractice lawsuits against her medical providers, alleging a “catastrophic failure” in diagnosing and treating her psychiatric condition. The lawsuits claim medical staff subjected her to a “disorganized, uncoordinated course of polypharmacy” that resulted in a psychotic break.
Under Massachusetts law, if Clancy were found not criminally responsible due to mental illness, she would not go to prison but could be committed to a secure mental health facility where she would come up for periodic review to determine if she could safely live in the community. The defense argues this outcome reflects the reality of Clancy’s condition at the time of the killings. However, prosecutors maintain their right to present the full scope of evidence to establish the level of premeditation and cruelty involved in the murders. Reddington noted that his reference to “an agreement” to stipulate was the defense’s internal decision to offer the admission, not an agreement struck with prosecutors. The case has drawn attention to questions of postpartum mental health care and the potential dangers of overmedication.
Clancy is scheduled to undergo a court-ordered forensic psychological evaluation from April 10-12, with a status hearing set for April 23. Her murder trial is scheduled to begin July 20 after multiple delays, and the court will decide whether to grant the defense motion for reconsideration before proceedings begin.
