Lindsay Clancy’s holdout juror shows ongoing skepticism of the ‘insanity defense’

Josh Reynolds/Pool/Reuters

What exactly was the lone holdout juror in Lindsay Clancy’s triple-murder trial thinking?

The juror himself has not spoken, but several other jurors said the holdout acknowledged he had doubts about the prosecution’s case but still declined to find Clancy not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility . At least one juror said the holdout was unable to cite evidence or testimony that helped prove what he was saying.

“He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children,” one juror told NBC10 Boston .

Those who have studied the so-called “insanity defense” say the holdout juror’s apparent position is not uncommon: Many people struggle or refuse to accept an insanity plea as a legitimate defense.

“There are people who in their heart believe there’s never any reasonable explanation that does not require punishment for somebody who murders their children,” said Dr. Joni Johnston, a forensic psychologist.

“It’s a natural inclination for people, reasonable people, to want to hold people responsible for what they do,” said Gary Galperin, a former prosecutor with a focus on forensic psychiatry and psychology. “Our system of criminal justice is premised on convicting and holding people liable if they engage in wrongdoing.”

Greg Derr/Pool/The Patriot Ledger

Lindsay Clancy juror says holdout ‘admitted he had reasonable doubt’

Their analysis adds further insight into the cause of the mistrial for Clancy, the 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse whose murder trial sparked emotional views online and over kitchen tables about the line between mental health and personal responsibility.

Clancy has admitted she fatally strangled her three young children and attempted suicide at their Massachusetts home in January 2023, but at trial her defense argued she was not “criminally responsible” because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis , a rare form of mental illness.

If she had been found not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, Clancy likely would have been committed to a psychiatric facility for an undetermined length of time.

Despite the mistrial, defense attorney Kevin Reddington claimed victory afterward and initially criticized the holdout juror’s position. Prosecutors have not yet said whether they plan to put Clancy on trial again.

Still, the holdout juror’s position hints at the broader skepticism of the insanity defense and offers a check on Reddington’s confidence. While the American public’s understanding of mental illness has come a long way, it remains difficult to convince all 12 members of a jury a person should not be held responsible for their own actions.

“This is a really good case study, if you will, in the insanity defense,” Galperin said. “What it takes to prevail in an insanity case and the strong emotions that exist on either side, especially when you’re dealing with such horrific facts as this.”

The insanity defense dates to the common law that underpins the American judicial system.

The defense was first formalized in an 1843 case against Daniel M’Naghten, who was found not guilty “by reason of insanity” by a jury after fatally shooting the secretary to the British Prime Minister, according to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute .

The M’Naghten Rules set the modern standard, finding that insanity exists if a person can prove they did not know what they were doing or did not know what they were doing was wrong.

This standard has been updated a bit in the 183 years since, and each state has its own definition and standard for criminal insanity.

In Massachusetts, the law sets out a definition of criminal responsibility and mental illness.

“A person is not criminally responsible for her conduct if she has a mental disease or defect and as a result of that mental disease or defect, lacks the substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or the wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law,” Judge William Sullivan told the jury at Clancy’s trial.

Further, if a defendant raises mental illness concerns in Massachusetts, the burden is on prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was criminally responsible at the time. By contrast, many other states put the burden on the defendant to prove insanity.

Perhaps the most well-known use of the insanity defense was in the trial of John Hinckley Jr. , the man who shot President Ronald Reagan and three others in 1981 in what he said was a delusional attempt to impress the actress Jodie Foster. The jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity. Hinckley spent nearly 30 years at a mental hospital before his release in 2016 .

The jury’s decision in Hinckley’s trial spurred a backlash against the insanity defense. Since then, a number of states have severely restricted or even abolished the insanity defense, a practice the US Supreme Court upheld in 2020 .

That 6-3 court decision, Kahler v. Kansas , acknowledged that views on mental illness and criminal responsibility are controversial, uncertain and ever-changing.

“Defining the precise relationship between criminal culpability and mental illness involves examining the workings of the brain, the purposes of the criminal law, the ideas of free will and responsibility,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority.

“It is a project demanding hard choices among values, in a context replete with uncertainty, even at a single moment in time. And it is a project, if any is, that should be open to revision over time, as new medical knowledge emerges and as legal and moral norms evolve,” Kagan wrote.

Reddington, Clancy’s defense attorney, knows well the challenges of the insanity defense and its evolution over time.

In a landmark 1989 case, Reddington successfully argued Therese Rogers was temporarily insane when she fatally stabbed her abusive husband. That was one of the first instances of what was then known as “battered woman syndrome.”

But in other cases jurors have been more skeptical of his arguments. In 2002, Reddington represented Michael McDermott, the man who carried out a workplace mass shooting in Wakefield, Massachusetts. He said McDermott was insane at the time and compared him to Jack Nicholson’s character in “The Shining.” The jury found McDermott guilty of seven counts of first-degree murder.

In Clancy’s case, Reddington has expressed confidence in a potential retrial, and the 11 to 1 jury split indicates the case nearly ended with an acquittal.

“If they tried the trial again the way they did, nine times out of 10, I think a jury would come back with not guilty by reason of insanity,” one juror told ABC News. “No doubt in my mind.”

But others are more skeptical.

Overall, people often perceive the insanity defense as a “get-out-of-jail-free card,” but it’s rarely used and even more rarely successful, said Johnston, the forensic psychologist. In a similar vein, Galperin, the former prosecutor, often says an insanity defense is a “defense of last resort.”

Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger/Pool/AP

Clancy’s trial has put a renewed spotlight on the mental health system and particularly on maternal mental health. It’s possible a future jury would be more familiar and informed about these issues because of this trial’s publicity.

Still, there remains a stigma around mental health and a skepticism of its role in people’s decision-making. Even in Clancy’s trial, expert psychiatrists for the prosecution and the defense disagreed on Clancy’s mental state at the time of the killings.

“People don’t understand mental illness,” said Margaret McLean, a former prosecutor who closely followed the trial. “It’s a society where we believe in crime and punishment. Somebody commits a crime, they should be punished for it appropriately. The insanity defense goes into a gray area of, What is mental illness? Do we really understand – what is psychosis?”

Ultimately, the majority of Clancy’s jury believed she didn’t receive adequate mental health treatment and thought a verdict of not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility would lead to her “getting the help she needs,” juror Paula Devlin told “CBS Mornings.”

“Everybody wants justice for the children. Those children never left that room. They’ve never left our heart. And that was a way to get justice for those children,” Devlin said Friday. “This wouldn’t have happened if Lindsay didn’t get lost in the system and failed by the system.”

In the end, any retrial would have a new set of jurors but would still have to deal with the challenges that are part and parcel of the insanity defense.

“The insanity plea polarizes many people,” Johnston said. “You take that, along with misconceptions about the spirit of it and the letter of it, and it’s not that surprising that you would have one person who just could not get over that hurdle.”

CNN’s Nicki Brown contributed to this report.

Josh Reynolds/Pool/路透社

在林赛·克兰西三重谋杀案的审判中，唯一一位持反对意见的陪审员究竟在想些什么？

这位陪审员本人并未发言，但其他几位陪审员表示，这位持反对意见的陪审员承认他对检方的指控有所怀疑，但仍然拒绝以缺乏刑事责任能力为由判克兰西无罪。至少有一位陪审员表示，这位持反对意见的陪审员无法提供任何证据或证词来证明他的说法。

一位陪审员告诉 NBC10 波士顿：“他最难接受的是林赛残忍杀害了自己的孩子。”

研究过所谓“精神错乱辩护”的人表示，这位持反对意见的陪审员的立场并不罕见：许多人难以接受或拒绝接受精神错乱辩护作为一种合法的辩护理由。

“有些人内心深处认为，对于杀害自己孩子的凶手，没有任何合理的解释可以免除惩罚，”法医心理学家乔尼·约翰斯顿博士说。

“对于理性的人来说，希望追究他人行为的责任是一种自然倾向，”曾担任检察官、专注于法医精神病学和心理学的加里·加尔佩林说道。“我们的刑事司法体系的基础在于，如果有人从事不法活动，就应该对其定罪并追究其责任。”

格雷格·德尔/Pool/《爱国者纪事报》

林赛·克兰西案陪审员称，那位坚持己见的陪审员“承认他有合理怀疑”。

他们的分析进一步揭示了克兰西（Clancy）谋杀案审判无效的原因。克兰西现年 36 岁，是一名产科护士。她的谋杀案审判在网络上和人们的餐桌上引发了关于心理健康与个人责任之间界限的激烈讨论。

克兰西承认，她在 2023 年 1 月于马萨诸塞州的家中勒死了她的三个年幼的孩子并试图自杀，但在审判中，她的辩护律师辩称，她不“负有刑事责任”，因为她患有产后精神病，这是一种罕见的精神疾病。

如果她因缺乏刑事责任能力而被判无罪，克兰西很可能会被送往精神病院接受一段时间的治疗。

尽管审判无效，辩护律师凯文·雷丁顿事后仍宣称胜诉，并最初批评了那位持反对意见的陪审员的立场。检方尚未表明是否计划再次对克兰西提起诉讼。

然而，这位持反对意见的陪审员的立场暗示了公众对精神错乱辩护普遍存在的怀疑态度，也对雷丁顿的信心构成了一定的质疑。尽管美国公众对精神疾病的理解已经取得了长足的进步，但要说服陪审团的12名成员相信一个人不应该为自己的行为负责，仍然十分困难。

“如果你愿意的话，这真是一个很好的精神错乱辩护案例，”加尔佩林说。“它展现了在精神错乱案件中胜诉需要付出怎样的努力，以及双方强烈的情绪，尤其是在面对如此骇人听闻的事实时。”

精神错乱辩护可以追溯到支撑美国司法体系的普通法。

根据康奈尔大学法学院法律信息研究所的说法，这种辩护方式最早在 1843 年丹尼尔·麦克诺顿的案件中得到正式确立。麦克诺顿枪杀了英国首相的秘书，但陪审团裁定他“因精神错乱”而无罪。

麦克诺顿规则确立了现代标准，认为如果一个人能够证明自己不知道自己在做什么，或者不知道自己在做什么是错的，那么就存在精神错乱。

此后的 183 年里，这一标准有所更新，每个州都有自己对刑事精神错乱的定义和标准。

在马萨诸塞州，法律对刑事责任和精神疾病作出了定义。

“如果一个人患有精神疾病或缺陷，并且由于这种精神疾病或缺陷，导致她缺乏足够的能力去理解自己行为的犯罪性或错误性，或者使自己的行为符合法律的要求，那么她就不应该对自己的行为承担刑事责任，”威廉·沙利文法官在克兰西的审判中告诉陪审团。

此外，在马萨诸塞州，如果被告提出精神疾病方面的担忧，检方有责任在排除合理怀疑的情况下证明被告在犯罪时负有刑事责任。相比之下，许多其他州则将举证责任放在被告身上，由被告证明自己当时精神错乱。

或许最著名的精神错乱辩护案例当属约翰·欣克利二世的审判。欣克利于1981年枪击了美国总统罗纳德·里根和其他三人，他声称自己当时精神错乱，试图博得女演员朱迪·福斯特的欢心。陪审团最终以精神错乱为由判他无罪。欣克利在精神病院接受了近30年的治疗，于2016年获释。

欣克利案陪审团的裁决引发了对精神错乱辩护的强烈反对。此后，许多州都严格限制甚至废除了精神错乱辩护，美国最高法院在2020年维持了这一做法。

在卡勒诉堪萨斯州一案中，法院以 6 比 3 的裁决承认，关于精神疾病和刑事责任的观点是存在争议的、不确定的，并且不断变化的。

“要明确刑事责任与精神疾病之间的确切关系，需要研究大脑的运作方式、刑法的目的、自由意志和责任的概念，”大法官埃琳娜·卡根代表多数派写道。

“这是一个需要在充满不确定性的环境中，在特定时刻做出艰难价值观抉择的项目。而且，如果说有什么项目是真正意义上的项目，那么它应该随着时间的推移而不断修订，因为新的医学知识不断涌现，法律和道德规范也在不断演变，”卡根写道。

克兰西的辩护律师雷丁顿深知精神错乱辩护的挑战及其随时间推移的演变。

在1989年的一起里程碑式案件中，雷丁顿成功辩称，特蕾丝·罗杰斯在刺死虐待她的丈夫时处于暂时性精神错乱状态。这是当时被称为“受虐妇女综合症”的首批案例之一。

但在其他案件中，陪审员对他的论点持怀疑态度。2002年，雷丁顿为迈克尔·麦克德莫特辩护，麦克德莫特在马萨诸塞州韦克菲尔德的一家工作场所制造了一起大规模枪击案。雷丁顿称麦克德莫特当时精神失常，并将其比作电影《闪灵》中杰克·尼科尔森饰演的角色。陪审团裁定麦克德莫特犯有七项一级谋杀罪。

就克兰西的案件而言，雷丁顿对可能的重审表示有信心，而 11 比 1 的陪审团投票结果表明，该案几乎以无罪释放告终。

一位陪审员告诉美国广播公司新闻网：“如果他们以同样的方式再次审判，我认为十有八九陪审团会以精神错乱为由判被告无罪。对此我毫不怀疑。”

但也有人对此持怀疑态度。

总体而言，人们通常将精神错乱辩护视为“免罪金牌”，但法医心理学家约翰斯顿表示，这种辩护很少被使用，成功的案例更是寥寥无几。同样，前检察官加尔佩林也经常说，精神错乱辩护是“最后的手段”。

格雷格·德尔/《爱国者纪事报》/美联社

克兰西的审判使人们再次关注精神卫生系统，尤其是孕产妇精神健康问题。由于此次审判的公开性，未来的陪审团可能会对这些问题更加熟悉和了解。

然而，人们对心理健康仍然存在偏见，并对其在决策中的作用持怀疑态度。即使在克兰西的审判中，控辩双方的精神病学专家也对克兰西在杀人时的精神状态存在分歧。

“人们不了解精神疾病，”密切关注此案的前检察官玛格丽特·麦克莱恩说道，“我们这个社会信奉犯罪与惩罚。有人犯罪，就应该受到相应的惩罚。精神错乱辩护则陷入了一个灰色地带，那就是：什么是精神疾病？我们真的了解——什么是精神病吗？”

最终，克兰西案的大多数陪审员认为她没有得到足够的心理健康治疗，并认为如果判她因缺乏刑事责任能力而无罪，她就能“得到她需要的帮助”，陪审员宝拉·德夫林告诉“CBS 早间新闻”。

“每个人都希望孩子们得到公正的对待。那些孩子从未离开过那个房间。他们从未离开过我们的心。而这正是为孩子们伸张正义的一种方式，”德夫林周五说道。“如果林赛没有迷失在体制中，没有被体制辜负，这一切就不会发生。”

最终，任何重审都会由新的陪审团成员组成，但仍然要应对精神错乱辩护中固有的挑战。

约翰斯顿说：“精神错乱辩护让很多人意见分歧很大。再加上人们对这项辩护的精神和条文存在误解，就不难理解为什么会有人无法接受这个辩护了。”

CNN的妮基·布朗对本报道亦有贡献。