This article discusses suicide. If you or someone you know is having thoughts of suicide, contact the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline at 988 or 1-800-273-TALK (8255).
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington secured a notable concession Monday when a hospital psychiatrist agreed that a person can communicate, make plans and carry them out while experiencing psychosis — a point the defense says undercuts prosecutors' portrayal of Lindsay Clancy as methodical and calculating.
Courtroom Exchange and What It Means
On Aug. 3, 2026, during the fifth day of testimony at Plymouth Superior Court, Reddington asked Dr. Sejal Shah of Brigham and Women's Hospital whether someone in psychosis could still plan and act. Shah replied, "Yes." When pressed whether psychosis requires a person to be "drooling and stumbling and unable to walk and talk," Shah answered no and agreed a person in psychosis can still communicate.
"People can communicate and plan and act on plans even if they're in the middle of a psychosis, right?" — Kevin Reddington
"Yes." — Dr. Sejal Shah
Background and Expert Observations
Clancy is accused of killing her three children in 2023 at the family's Duxbury home. The victims were Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months. Clancy has pleaded not guilty, saying she suffered from postpartum psychosis and was not criminally responsible.
Shah first evaluated Clancy five days after the deaths. She testified that Clancy appeared confused during an early cognitive assessment, made errors, and reported visual hallucinations after spinal surgery. Shah diagnosed delirium and identified possible causes including anesthesia effects, oxygenation problems and an elevated heart rate; she said those acute symptoms resolved by the following day.
Defendant Lindsay Clancy on Monday, Aug. 3, 2026, the fifth day of testimony at Plymouth Superior Court for her murder trial. Clancy is charged with three counts of murder in connection with the death of her three young children in 2023 at their Duxbury home. Clancy says she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and is not criminally responsible.
In subsequent psychiatric evaluations, Shah said Clancy appeared calm and cooperative, displayed organized and goal-directed thinking, and denied hallucinations or suicidal or homicidal intent. On cross-examination, Reddington argued those later observations did not prove Clancy was free of psychosis at the time of the killings.
Prosecutors' Focus and Other Testimony
Prosecutors have emphasized the timeline surrounding Patrick Clancy’s trips to a CVS and a local restaurant and his communications with his wife to suggest she was lucid during the critical window. On redirect, prosecutors also explored Clancy’s medication history: Shah acknowledged that Clancy was not taking every psychiatric prescription discussed and that some prescriptions were barely used or untouched.
Shah confirmed that after surviving a fall from a second-story window, Clancy requested a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order; the hospital did not immediately change her status because of the reported suicide attempt, and Shah said Clancy later agreed her mental health should be stabilized before reconsidering the request.
Why This Matters
Defense experts say the concession that people can appear organized while experiencing psychosis is helpful because it allows jurors to consider that moments of lucidity do not preclude severe psychiatric disturbance at other times. But legal analysts caution the defense must still link psychotic symptoms to the exact moment the children were killed.
High-profile defense attorney Seth J. Zuckerman told reporters the central question is, "What was in her mind at the exact time that she killed her children?" Under Massachusetts law, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was criminally responsible at the time of the offense.
Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse at Massachusetts General Hospital, faces three counts of murder and three counts of strangulation. Judge William Sullivan instructed jurors that criminal responsibility at the time of death is a key element the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
