PLYMOUTH, Mass. (AP) — Jurors in the Lindsay Clancy trial have been struggling to agree on a verdict following a trial over whether she should be held criminally responsible for killing her three young children at her Massachusetts home in 2023.

Both sides agree that she did it. But her attorneys argue that Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time and that poor mental healthcare exacerbated her condition. Prosecutors argue that she intentionally planned the killings.

Over 21 days of testimony, the jury heard from dozens of witnesses including doctors, first responders, relatives and even Clancy’s former husband.

If convicted, Clancy's sentence could be as severe as life in prison. If found not guilty, she may be released or remain confined in a mental health facility. If the jury is unable to reach a verdict, the judge could declare a mistrial.

As the jury deliberates, here are moments from the trial they may be considering:

___

EDITOR’S NOTE: This story includes discussion of suicide. If you or someone you know needs help, the national suicide and crisis lifeline in the U.S. is available by calling or texting 988.

___

Clancy's former husband made anguished 911 call

Clancy's former husband, Patrick Clancy, was first to take the stand.

In emotional testimony, he described the day he found his wife after she tried to kill herself.

Lindsay Clancy had sent him out to get takeout food and medication for their daughter, which prosecutors argue was an excuse to get him out of the house.

He came home to find the house unusually silent, before finding blood throughout the main bedroom and a window open.

Jurors listened to the 911 call Patrick Clancy made after finding his wife outside in the snow. Clancy can be heard speaking with his wife, then tells the dispatcher he’s going to check on the children.

Moments later, he howls and cries after finding his children in the basement. The confused dispatcher repeatedly asks what happened.

“She killed the kids!” he yells.

Everyone knew Clancy was struggling

Clancy's mother, mother-in-law, sister, friends and co-workers testified that Clancy struggled with her mental health after giving birth to Callan, the youngest of her three children.

Clancy's mother-in-law, Susan Clancy, said she and her former daughter-in-law were close. Both worked as labor and delivery nurses. She described Lindsay as a wonderful mother.

But Susan Clancy testified that Lindsay had become anxious, paranoid and suicidal, and that the psychiatric care she was getting wasn't helping.

“She felt unwell. She had insomnia. She was losing her appetite. She was very anxious and sad,” Susan Clancy said. “She was begging for help.”

Lindsay Clancy’s mother, Paula Musgrove, testified that her daughter was scared of sleeping alone, became paranoid and believed the medications she was taking “were destroying her mind.”

“Mom, will you please come up and stay with me for a bit? I’m really sick. Something is wrong,” Clancy wrote in an October 2022 text message that Paula Musgrove read in court. “I had horrible insomnia all night, and I just don’t know how I am going to get through the day. … It’s just really scary, and I don’t want to be alone.”

The defense questioned the quality of Clancy's medical care

Clancy saw several doctors about her declining mental health, and eventually checked herself in to a psychiatric hospital.

Her lawyer, Kevin Reddington, argued that she was misdiagnosed and overmedicated.

As he cross-examined one of her psychiatrists, Dr. Jennifer Tufts, Reddington questioned her expertise, prescribing decisions and use of 25-minute video appointments with limited time for talk therapy.

At one point, Reddington implied that Tufts was a box-checking “robot.”

“What did you do? You had a woman who was telling you she felt hopeless,” he asked as they discussed an appointment about two months before the killings.

“I told her that this was something we could address, that there was hope, that there are treatments, that there are different types of programs,” Tufts said, “so she knew that she still had options and a reason to hope.”

Clancy said she heard a voice telling her to kill

Paul Zeizel, a clinical and forensic psychologist who visited Lindsay Clancy in the hospital after she killed the children, testified that he overheard her saying that a disembodied male voice had told her she had no choice but to kill her children and then herself. Zeizel said he believed Clancy wasn't responsible for her actions because of her deep mental illness.

Prosecutors called a rebuttal witness, forensic psychologist Kirk Heilbrun, who said he didn’t believe Clancy had hallucinated voices.

“One of the things that she said when I asked about what happened, is that in the course of strangling each child, she said, ‘Go to God, baby. Go to God,’” he said. “That was part of her expectation that she and the children would be together in heaven with God.”

Dr. Gregory Saathoff, a senior psychiatrist for the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit, testified for prosecutors that Clancy “had the capacity to know right from wrong.”

The lawyers got the last word

After testimony was complete, each side got about an hour to make their closing argument to the jury.

Reddington showed the jury a photograph of the Clancy family, looking happy, and a second one of Lindsay Clancy in the hospital.

“How does this turn into this?” Reddington asked. “How? Because of the damn medicine and the lousy medical care that she got.”

Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague said criticizing the mental health system was “a distraction.” She said Clancy chose to kill her children because doing so would make it easier to kill herself.

“She was depressed. She was exhausted. She was done. She didn’t want to try anymore. She felt damaged,” Sprague said. “But those kids, those kids were her protective factor. Those kids were keeping her from ending her misery.”

Jurors have struggled to agree on a verdict

The jury began deliberating Aug. 27 and worked entirely out of public view.

On Tuesday, the fourth day of deliberations, jurors sent the judge a note in the morning saying they could not unanimously agree.

The note did not elaborate, and there were no clues as to whether a majority of jurors were leaning toward a conviction or acquittal. It also did not provide any insight into the tone of deliberations or whether they had been cordial or acrimonious.

Judge William Sullivan asked jurors to keep deliberating.

On Wednesday they sent the court another short note saying they were still at an impasse.

Sullivan again told them to keep trying and ultimately sent them home for the night, with deliberations to resume Thursday.

Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.