JOEL ROSE, HOST:
Jury deliberations resume tomorrow in the trial of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts woman charged with killing her three children in 2023. Her attorney is seeking what's known as an insanity defense. Generally, that's hard to prove. But as Deborah Becker from member station WBUR reports, Massachusetts laws could work in Clancy's favor.
DEBORAH BECKER, BYLINE: Clancy's defense does not dispute that she killed her children. They do claim her mental state was so impaired that she shouldn't be held criminally responsible. So in Massachusetts, prosecutors don't have to prove the facts of the crimes. What they do have to prove is that Clancy was sane.
KEITH HALPERN: Massachusetts law is actually more favorable to defendants than many states.
BECKER: Boston criminal defense attorney Keith Halpern, who's successfully argued similar cases, says state prosecutors must prove one of two things beyond a reasonable doubt.
HALPERN: It's either/or the appreciation of the wrongfulness of the conduct or the inability to conform your conduct to the law.
BECKER: Forensic psychiatrist David Rosmarin, who studied the insanity defense, has evaluated more than 150 murder defendants, but not Clancy. He says prosecutors must prove that someone really understood the morality of their actions.
DAVID ROSMARIN: Not mere knowledge or intellectual awareness, rather meaningful understanding and intelligent comprehension.
BECKER: Placing the burden on prosecutors to prove someone was sane is a different approach than many other states which require the defense to prove insanity. Each state sets its own standards, and Rosmarin says many states adopted federal guidelines written decades ago.
ROSMARIN: Congress in 1984 passed the Insanity Defense Reform Act that heightened the bar substantially.
BECKER: The act was in response to the successful insanity defense of John Hinckley Jr. after he attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. Opposition to Hinckley's acquittal caused several states to ban the insanity defense altogether, and four states still do. It also resulted in a narrow standard for federal crimes.
BRAD BAILEY: The burden of proof is on the defense in federal court. And also, it has to be established by clear and convincing evidence, which is a pretty darn high standard.
BECKER: Defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor Brad Bailey says the insanity defense is argued in only about 1% of felony cases and only succeeds about 25% of the time. In Clancy's case, attorney Keith Halpern says jurors might lean in her favor.
HALPERN: The juries are more inclined to believe that any woman, any mother who would kill their kids has got to be seriously mentally ill.
BECKER: Both sides agree Clancy was a devoted mother who was struggling. Prosecutors say Clancy did not have psychosis. The defense claims she did. Boston criminal defense attorney Janice Bassil successfully argued the insanity defense for another mother charged with killing her child. She says for prosecutors to prevail, they need to explain the why.
JANICE BASSIL: Even though the commonwealth doesn't have to prove a motive - right? - juries look for a motive. And what's the motive here?
BECKER: If the jury acquits, Clancy would be committed to a state hospital, and she would have yearly reviews as to whether she could be safely released. For NPR News, I'm Deborah Becker in Boston. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
