Prosecutors say Clancy intentionally killed her children, while the defense argues she should not be held criminally responsible because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis. • Deliberations begin: The jury in the trial of Lindsay Clancy , the Massachusetts mother accused of murder after strangling her three young children, started deliberating today. Jurors were sent home at the end of the day and are expected to resume deliberations tomorrow. • Defense’s argument: Before deliberations started, both sides gave closing arguments. In his, Clancy’s attorney — who says she should not be held criminally responsible for the killings because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis — described her as a “darn good mother” and argued she received “lousy medical care” for mental illness. Clancy has pleaded not guilty and faces life in prison if convicted. • Prosecution’s case: Meanwhile, prosecutors have argued Clancy acted “ intentionally, rationally, and swiftly ” to kill her children. In closings today, they said she had the means to access great medical care and said her health care providers are not at fault. • Editor’s note: Coverage of this story contains graphic descriptions of child killings, suicidal ideation, and an attempt to die by suicide. Our live coverage of closing arguments and the start of jury deliberations in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial has ended for the day. The jury will be back on Friday morning to continue its deliberations in the trial of Lindsay Clancy. Weeks of testimony wrapped up this morning with closing arguments, then the jury deliberated for about 3.5 hours. As he left, Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, said that his client is “nervous” and “scared” with her fate now in the jury’s hands. The courtroom today was packed with reporters and members of the public. A few women in the gallery were wearing pink, presumably in support of Clancy. Before the closing arguments began, Clancy was seen wiping the corner of her eyes, and her shoulders shook as Judge William Sullivan reviewed the charges against her. What’s at stake: The jury is made up of nine women and three men. Six alternates — three men and three women — were dismissed and were not part of the deliberations. Jurors can consider charges of first-degree murder , second-degree murder, or manslaughter. First-degree murder is punishable by life in prison without the possibility of parole. Second-degree murder is punishable by life in prison with the possibility of parole. Manslaughter is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. If the jury finds Clancy not criminally responsible for the killings of her children, she could spend the rest of her life in a hospital — and eventually be released, the judge explained. In his closing argument, Reddington said evidence shows Clancy was “ a darn good mother ” and the killings happened “because of the damn medicine and the lousy medical care ” Clancy received. Reddington said Clancy “ lived for her kids ” until doctors began overprescribing her medications. The evidence presented showed Clancy had raised concerns and fears about the medications, he said, and her handwritten notes show how her mental state deteriorated . Clancy is not “ criminally responsible ” for the crime because of her psychological state, he said, citing the expert opinion of forensic psychiatrist Dr. Phillip Resnick. The psychiatrist examined Clancy and testified she was “ frankly psychotic ” and not in control of her actions during the killings. Experts for both sides acknowledged during the trial that Clancy made a “ serious suicide attempt ,” Reddington said. The jury was also presented exhibits that support that, he said. The defense lawyer also accused police of not conducting a thorough investigation. Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague told jurors that “ there’s no dispute that Lindsay Clancy was suffering from a mental illness and that she tried to kill herself,” but the issue is if she “knew the difference between right and wrong” when she killed her three kids. Killing them “ was a choice ,” she said. Sprague argued Clancy interacted with the public and presented “herself as a functioning adult, a functioning mom.” She pointed out Clancy chose not to tell mandated reporters about thoughts of harming her kids and how she took her daughter to the doctor the day of the killings. Sprague also said Clancy did not immediately tell her husband that she heard a voice that directed her to kill the kids. Further, the failure of the suicide attempt shows that there was no voice in her head, Sprague argued, pointing out that the pills she took were not at a lethal level and cut wounds were “superficial.” Clancy had resources, support and access to great medical care but did not follow through on a plan, Sprague said. Medical providers aren’t at fault for Clancy’s depression because she wasn’t always being honest with her doctors about her condition and what medications she took, according to Sprague. CNN’s Nicki Brown, Lauren del Valle, Eric Levenson, Maureen Chowdhury and Chelsea Bailey contributed reporting. Lindsay Clancy is nervous as she waits for the jury to reach a verdict, according to her attorney Kevin Reddington. “She’s doing all right. She’s, you know, she’s nervous. She’s scared,” the defense attorney told reporters. Reddington was bombarded by a gaggle of reporters leaving the courthouse at the end of the day – typical of his arrival and departure each day of the trial. The defense attorney also complimented prosecutor Jennifer Sprague when asked if he was surprised by Commonwealth’s closing argument. “She did a nice job,” Reddington said. The jury in Lindsay Clancy’s trial has three verdict slips with several options of how they could decide after carefully weighing evidence in the case. The slips, one for each of Clancy’s three children, have the following options. The jury’s decisions will have to be unanimous. Not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility Guilty of first-degree murder Guilty of second-degree murder Guilty of manslaughter Here’s the difference: First-degree murder means she intentionally killed the children with “deliberate premeditation” or with “extreme atrocity or cruelty” and is punishable by life in prison without the possibility of parole. Second-degree murder means she intentionally killed the children but without those conditions, and is punishable by life in prison with the possibility of parole. Manslaughter means she intentionally acted with “wanton or reckless conduct” that resulted in her children’s deaths. It is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Before closing arguments started this morning, the judge explained to the jury that if it finds Clancy not criminally responsible for the killings of her children, she could spend the rest of her life in a hospital — and eventually be released. The jury has been instructed it can find Clancy not guilty for her children’s deaths if it determines she suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the killings. The jury in Lindsay Clancy’s trial were sent home for the day after deliberating for just over three hours. The jury will return to court Friday morning at 9 a.m. ET to resume their deliberations. If jurors find Lindsay Clancy not guilty due to a lack of criminal responsibility — known in some other states as the “insanity defense” — she would not be immediately released. Instead, the court may begin the process to have her committed to a psychiatric hospital or mental health facility. Per Massachusetts state law , when a person is found not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, a court can commit them after holding a hearing and determining if they are mentally ill and if their release would create a likelihood of serious harm to themself or others. An initial commitment lasts six months, and later commitments last one year. There is no maximum number of re-commitments, and the patient could remain hospitalized for the rest of their life. Clancy, who is partially paralyzed, has been held at Tewksbury Hospital since 2023. She continues to take psychotropic medicines for her mental health issues, according to Paul Zeizel, a clinical and forensic psychologist who has examined her. Other cases: In previous high-profile cases, defendants who were found not guilty by reason of insanity ended up being committed for extended periods. Andrea Yates , the Texas mother who drowned her five children in their bathtub in 2001, was found not guilty by reason of insanity in a 2006 retrial. She was then committed to a state hospital and remains there to this day. People magazine reported in 2022 she has waived her annual review of her commitment, instead choosing to continue treatment. Or consider the case of John Hinckley Jr. , the man who shot President Ronald Reagan and three others in 1981 in what he said was an attempt to impress the actress Jodie Foster. The jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity, and he was committed to a hospital in Washington, DC, in 1982. Over the years, the court allowed him to leave the hospital for supervised family visits, and he was ultimately released in 2016. He was released from all court oversight in 2022, after 41 years. To convict Lindsay Clancy of murder, prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt she intentionally caused their deaths and is “criminally responsible.” In this trial, both the prosecution and defense agree Clancy fatally strangled her children with exercise resistance bands on January 24, 2023. The key question, though, is whether she is criminally responsible. Judge William Sullivan explained the legal term to the jury at the start of the trial: Under Massachusetts law, a “mental disease or defect” does not need to fit into a formal medical diagnosis. Both sides agree Clancy had postpartum mental health issues beginning in September 2022. Prosecutors have argued she still had the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions, noting she sent her husband out to run errands before killing the kids, and upon waking in a hospital, she asked for an attorney . However, the defense has argued she killed them during an episode of postpartum psychosis. They cited Clancy’s declining mental health in the months beforehand and her statements afterward that she heard a persistent male voice telling her to kill her children and herself. In particular, prosecutors have argued Clancy committed first-degree murder, meaning she killed the children with “deliberate premeditation” or with “extreme atrocity or cruelty,” or second-degree murder, without either condition. The jury can also consider manslaughter charges. If the jury does not find that prosecutors have proven Clancy was criminally responsible, she would be found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. In that case, the court may begin the process of committing her to a mental health facility. Lindsay Clancy’s trial has elevated conversations and concerns around postpartum depression and psychosis. Dr. Sheila Shanmugan, director of the Penn Center for Women’s Behavioral Wellness, told CNN the postpartum period can be a particularly vulnerable time. But there are several warning signs loved ones can look out for if they are concerned about psychosis. While most new mothers experience exhaustion, Shanmugan said, one of the earliest signs of psychosis is severe, persistent insomnia, without feeling tired. “The difference with postpartum psychosis is that the insomnia is not related to taking care of (the) baby and she’s not tired,” she said. “So if you have that combination of symptoms – not sleeping and not tired – that’s an early sign that something is wrong.” Another sign to look out for is confusion or disorientation that can wax and wane, Shanmugan said. “You can have these periods of confusion, and disorientation and then there are periods where you seem almost completely normal,” she said. You should seek help if you or someone you know is experiencing either of these symptoms, Shanmugan said. Kevin Reddington, Lindsay Clancy’s 75-year-old defense attorney, has an extensive history of defending high-profile Massachusetts clients and relying on what’s colloquially known as the “insanity defense.” 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.” In 2002, he 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.” McDermott was found guilty of seven counts of first-degree murder. He has also represented prominent figures in Boston’s history. He served as counsel for Catherine Greig , the girlfriend of notorious Boston mobster Whitey Bulger, who pleaded guilty to charges related to helping Bulger avoid capture. And he defended then-Red Sox star Mo Vaughn in 1998 on a drunken driving charge, which ended in a not guilty verdict .

“He is the consummate defense attorney,” his friend Jack Atwood told The Boston Globe in a 2000 profile . “And he is a very hard worker.” Reddington is a colorful character on his own. A 2023 story in the Patriot Ledger noted his collection of tattoos, including one in Latin meaning “Never represent an informant” and another in Greek meaning “Come and take them.” The Globe profile reported he had a vanity license plate “NG,” for not guilty, and wore a necktie with the same initials. Reddington graduated from Suffolk University Law School and has been licensed to practice since 1975. More than 50 years into his legal career, he has become a recognized figure. On Wednesday outside of court, a few supporters came up to him and asked to take photos with him, including a woman with her young daughter. One young woman even pitched herself to be his intern. As jurors deliberated Lindsay Clancy’s fate, a member of the public made his way over to her parents while they stood outside a courthouse restroom. “They never should have brought this trial,” the man told the couple before a member of the defense team whisked them away. Later, a group of four women — including one who is pregnant and another wearing a neon pink blazer — discussed the trial as they stood in a hall. All four women had been seated in the public section of the gallery before the jury began deliberations. When the prosecutors walked by the group, the women noted the large black bow Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham wore in her hair — an accessory she’s worn on several other occasions during the trial. During her opening statement, Buckingham mentioned that Lindsay Clancy’s daughter, Cora, liked to wear large bows in her hair. “The bow is a bit much,” one of the women said, as the prosecutor walked by. Mark Eiglarsh, a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, said that the crux of the Lindsay Clancy’s case comes down to whether she should be legally held responsible for killing her children. “And on that, I think the defense had a more compelling argument,” Eiglarsh told CNN’s Boris Sanchez, following closing arguments today. Eiglarsh said both sides presented experts who supported their respective arguments. “The prosecution side saying, ‘No, she should be held criminally responsible.’ And on the other side, ‘No way. This is waxing and waning. One minute you could be OK, the next minute you could be absolutely out of your mind.’ So who do you believe?” Eiglarsh asked. Eiglarsh added: “If both parties have theories that are equally consistent with guilt and/or innocence, then you go to the burden of proof. And the burden of proof, as the defense argued, lies exclusively in the hands of the prosecutors.” And for the jury, that means, “if you’re not certain beyond a reasonable doubt, then you have to vote in favor of the defense,” Eiglarsh said. The jury that will consider Lindsay Clancy’s fate is made up of nine women and three men. The panel includes a woman who was wiping her eyes and a man who appeared distracted during closing arguments; and a woman who nodded when a psychiatrist testified Clancy’s choice to not take a certain medication was reasonable “in her mind.” Many of the empaneled jurors have been diligently taking notes during the testimony. The jury foreperson is a woman with gray hair and glasses. Six alternates — three men and three women — were dismissed and so will not deliberate. Correction : This post has been updated to better describe a juror’s reaction to closing arguments. After the jury exited the courtroom, Judge William F. Sullivan took a moment to commend all three attorneys for their work on the case. “Unless you’ve tried a difficult murder like this one, you may not be aware how difficult and tough it is to try a case like this,” Sullivan said. Jurors started deliberating Thursday in the triple-murder trial of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother who argues she should not be held criminally responsible for fatally strangling her children, in a case that has spurred a national conversation about postpartum mental health. Deliberations began after weeks of testimony from more than 80 witnesses, including Clancy’s former husband, medical providers who testified about her mental health struggles and emergency personnel who responded to the family’s Duxbury home. Clancy’s defense attorney argues she should not be held criminally responsible for the killings because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis when she strangled her three children and attempted suicide in January 2023. Prosecutors, meanwhile, have argued Clancy killed her children “deliberately and meticulously.” Clancy, who has pleaded not guilty to three counts of first-degree murder, could face life in prison if convicted. If jurors find her not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, prosecutors can petition to commit her to a psychiatric facility. Judge William F. Sullivan showed the jury the verdict slips that the panel will use to come to a unanimous decision in Lindsay Clancy’s trial. There are three verdict slips, one for each of Clancy’s three children. Each verdict slip has several options: Not guilty, not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, guilty of first-degree murder, guilty of second-degree murder and guilty of manslaughter. “Reaching a verdict in this case is not necessarily going to be an easy task,” he said. Judge William F. Sullivan advised the jury not to be influenced by the “unpleasant” nature of the photos of the children’s autopsies. “The images depicted are not pleasant,” he said. “Your verdict must not in any way be influenced by the fact that these images are unpleasant or graphic.” “The defendant is entitled to a verdict based solely on the evidence and not one based on pity or sympathy for the decedents, which might be occasioned by the images depicted.” He said the jury can consider the photos only regarding a clinical medical status or the nature of their injuries. Judge William F. Sullivan is reading aloud jury instructions related to reasonable doubt, the jury’s role in the trial, rules of evidence and more. The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, Sullivan said. The jury’s role is to determine the facts of the case, while the judge decides the law, he said. The opening statements and closing arguments are not evidence, he said. Jurors can consider direct and circumstantial evidence and are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses. These are largely standard jury instructions in Massachusetts. Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague finished her closing arguments by emphasizing Lindsay Clancy’s planning and the pain and suffering each of her children experienced. “Taking Dawson first and moving him to a separate room, having Cora stay with Callan … that’s rational. That makes sense. That’s ordered thinking,” Sprague said before describing in detail how Clancy used the exercise band to strangle her 3-year-old son. A female juror bowed her head as Sprague spoke; she later began wiping her eyes as the commonwealth’s attorney described the children’s final moments. “Just think of that … being strangled and the pain and the confusion that they’re going through … and it’s being done by their mom.” Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague reiterated the commonwealth’s doubts over Clancy’s claim that a male voice instructed her to kill her children and herself during a spell of psychosis. After requesting a lawyer in the hospital after the incident, Clancy reported hearing this voice during the incident. “When she woke in the hospital, and she knew she was alive, and the kids weren’t, she knew what she did was wrong. She said she felt horrified. And then, while still with a tube in her throat, she’s asking, ‘Do I have a lawyer?’” Sprague told the jury during the commonwealth’s closing argument. “And then, then we get the justification, the excuse of the voice, and there are a few reasons why the voice doesn’t make sense.” Sprague invoked the well-known case of Andrea Yates , who drowned her five children in Texas in 2001 and reportedly heard a voice telling her to do so. It was mentioned by a defense expert’s testimony during Clancy’s trial. “You heard him talk about Andrea Yates, about how she heard voices to kill her children for months, and what’d she do? She committed herself five times. She tried to kill herself twice to avoid harming her children.” Defense attorney Kevin Reddington objected. The judge told Sprague to move on. “Lindsey Clancy hears this voice one time and does it. Doesn’t try to lock herself in the bathroom. Call Patrick. Call 911. Doesn’t try to leave. … She doesn’t try any tactics to avoid the voice. She just obeys,” Sprague said. Clancy’s claim to have heard the voice only that one time is a red flag, Sprague said. “She never heard it before, and she hasn’t heard it since.” Clancy also had to choose the location and method of the killings because the voice didn’t specify, Sprague said. The prosecutor cast doubt on the idea that Clancy was in psychosis with no free will during the incident yet could make all the choices required by the killings. Hours before killing her children, Lindsay Clancy searched CVS inventory online and then called the local store to inquire about a product for her daughter. She planned the pharmacy stop for her then-husband Patrick, who she would also ask to pick up some takeout for dinner, prosecutor Jennifer Sprague said. That’s because Clancy wanted to know she’d have enough time to perpetrate the killings, Sprague said. “Because she’s adding to this errand that she’s sending Patrick out on, and she has to make sure she’s not interrupted,” Sprague said during the prosecution’s closing argument. “She wants him to go to CVS and have the medication there and get it, and then go on to 3V, so she has time to do what she needs to do.” Clancy called in the takeout order for herself and Patrick at 5:10 p.m. She was able to recall the order and give Patrick’s phone number as the pick-up person, Sprague said. Then as Patrick was nearly out the door, Clancy asked him to make the CVS run, “acting like it’s this last-minute thought,” Sprague said. Patrick agreed and asked his then-wife to text him the product she wanted. Clancy texted him the information at 5:15 p.m. He called her at 5:33 p.m. from CVS but she didn’t answer. Clancy called him back a minute later. They spoke briefly then Patrick left the store to pick up the food order and return home. By the time Patrick got to the house, Clancy strangled her children and attempted suicide. Stringer/AFP/Getty Images Live Updates a min ago Deadly Nepal-China border flash floods Majid Asgaripour/Wana News Agency/Reuters Live Updates a min ago War with Iran Navesh Chitrakar/Reuters Live Updates a min ago En español: inundaciones en Nepal y China Majid Asgaripour/Wana News Agency/Reuters Live Updates a min ago En español: guerra de EE.UU. con Irán Scan the QR code to download the CNN app on Google Play. Scan the QR code to download the CNN app from the Apple Store.