PLYMOUTH, Mass. — The Lindsay Clancy murder trial has entered its final stage, with closing arguments Thursday before the case is handed to the jury.
After weeks of emotional testimony and dueling expert opinions about Clancy’s mental state, jurors will soon decide whether the Duxbury mother was criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children.
Criminal defense attorney Elyse Hershon told Boston 25 News that closing arguments are often the most critical part of a trial, giving attorneys one final opportunity to tie together evidence and persuade jurors.
“This is the strongest part of the case,” Hershon said. “Essentially the entire case comes down to this.”
Story continues below Trending Shorts
Hershon expects prosecutors to focus on the victims and evidence presented throughout the trial, while the defense is likely to highlight testimony from its expert witnesses and argue that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proof.
One key moment came during testimony from the prosecution’s final rebuttal witness, forensic psychiatrist Dr. Gregory Saathoff. During cross-examination, defense attorney Kevin Reddington referenced statements made by prosecutors during opening arguments, prompting Saathoff to acknowledge that parts of those statements minimized what Clancy was experiencing at the time.
Hershon said the exchange was significant because it allowed the defense to challenge the credibility of the prosecution’s case using one of the Commonwealth’s own witnesses.
“He’s using their witness to say that they exaggerated, that they’re not credible,” Hershon said. “It was very symbolic in calling into question basically the prosecutor’s case in its entirety.”
She also pointed to testimony involving defense expert Dr. Phillip Resnick, a nationally recognized psychiatrist known for his work in cases involving postpartum psychosis and maternal filicide.
According to Hershon, Reddington got prosecution witnesses to acknowledge Resnick’s reputation and expertise.
“There’s nothing more powerful than that,” she said. “Using their witness to vouch for your own.”
Another major development came when the judge ruled jurors can consider manslaughter as a possible verdict.
Hershon described the option as a potential middle ground for jurors who believe Clancy caused the deaths but are not convinced she should be held fully criminally responsible because of her mental state.
“It essentially gives the jury another option,” Hershon said. “A compromise verdict.”
The addition does not change the Commonwealth’s burden of proof, but it gives jurors a broader range of choices as they deliberate.
Ultimately, Hershon said predicting what jurors are thinking is nearly impossible. However, she noted that jurors have wide latitude in deciding which expert witnesses they find most credible.
“The judge is going to tell them they need to weigh the experts how they want to,” Hershon said. “They can completely disregard an expert, or they can rely fully on one expert that they think had the most impact.”
She believes Resnick’s testimony may have resonated with jurors because of his extensive experience studying postpartum psychosis and consulting on high-profile cases, including that of Andrea Yates.
The jury begins deliberations and will determine Clancy’s fate when closings are finished.
Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
©2026 Cox Media Group
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/cmg/7QOJU3BNCJERBNKJC5LWTBYFLU.png)
