The judge overseeing the Lindsay Clancy trial formally gave jury instructions on Thursday, allowing jurors to consider lesser offenses, including second-degree murder or manslaughter.
At the start of the trial, Clancy, who has admitted to fatally strangling her three young children, was facing three counts of first-degree murder, which carry a life sentence. Clancy’s defense team argued that jurors should be allowed to consider second-degree murder or manslaughter, while the state objected. Judge William Sullivan ultimately agreed to give the manslaughter instruction.
First-degree murder means Clancy intentionally killed her children with “deliberate premeditation” — or, under the prosecution’s other theory, with “extreme atrocity or cruelty.” First-degree murder in Massachusetts is punishable by life in prison without parole. For a second-degree murder conviction, the jury would have to find that Clancy intentionally killed her children, but without the first-degree conditions; this would come with a life sentence with the possibility of parole. A manslaughter conviction would require jurors to find that Clancy caused her children’s deaths through “wanton or reckless” conduct. This is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
Law professor and legal expert Jonathan Turley reacted to the late addition of the manslaughter option on Thursday, posting on X, “I remain mystified how strangling three children could be manslaughter rather than murder in the Clancy case. It is an effort to have the sentence drive the verdict. It is akin to the demand of the Queen of Hearts for ‘sentence first, verdict afterwards.’”
I remain mystified how strangling three children could be manslaughter rather than murder in the Clancy case. It is an effort to have the sentence drive the verdict. It is akin to the demand of the Queen of Hearts for “sentence first, verdict afterwards.”
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) August 27, 2026
Clancy is accused of murdering her three children, 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan. During the trial, it was established that Clancy strangled the children with exercise bands, one after the other.
Though she’s pleaded not guilty to the murder charges, her defense team’s strategy effectively establishes that she killed the kids. Her defense is arguing that Clancy should not be held criminally liable for their deaths due to reasons of insanity, specifically postpartum psychosis.
Related: Patrick Clancy Breaks Silence On Conspiracy Theories Surrounding Children’s Deaths
