Inside the Lindsay Clancy courtroom, plus prosecutor Matt Murphy and defense attorney Josh Ritter

[00:00:00][music] It is Tuesday, the 21st of July, 2026.

[00:00:10]I'm Nate Eaton. Welcome to Courtroom Insider. Glad you are here with us tonight. Day two of jury selection in Lindseay Clancy's Massachusetts trial.

[00:00:20]And we are going to have a live report here in just a moment from our producer Grace who has been in the courtroom all day. Give you some insight about what's going on in there that we're not seeing.

[00:00:30]In fact, we're not seeing any of it because the judge is not allowing cameras in for jury selection, but we are closer to opening statements when our camera will be allowed in the media camera and you'll be able to see that. I would love to know where you're watching from. If you have any questions, please comment down below and your thoughts on this case. It's been fascinating to read your comments. It seems like we're kind of split as our audience is kind of split. Many of you uh are are on the side of the defense and many of you are on the side of the prosecution and we will see if that changes as the trial progresses. It should be 6 to 8 weeks they're saying and once uh once the jury is picked that will begin. So the judge wants 18 jurors that includes six alternates. Today we got up to 13, but a juror from yesterday, juror number two, said he couldn't come back. He couldn't do it. So, we're down to 12. 12 jurors picked between two days, not not bad.

[00:01:28]Not a bad track record. If that continues tomorrow on Wednesday, then we will have all 18. And we could potentially have opening statements on Thursday morning as the trial begins.

[00:01:38]It's going to go every day 9 to 4 Eastern. That's 7 to2 Mountain time. And if during jury selection the judge there's a motion or some other um thing that comes up that that is not dealing with the jury, we're able to carry that for you live as we did yesterday for a minute. There was something that came up. Uh today there was nothing. It was just all jury selection. So there was no feed. We did have a seal a shot of the seal for a moment or two. Uh but then it went straight back into jury selection.

[00:02:08]So we got a full show tonight. We have Grace coming up. We've got Matt Murphy.

[00:02:11]You know, Matt, he uh friend of mine from uh he's a prosecutor, has done countless countless cases. He's going to be here to share his thoughts. And then Josh Ritter from Courtroom Confidential.

[00:02:22]He's going to be here to kind of share the defense's side. Another great guy.

[00:02:26]Uh so, hope you will stay tuned for those coming up. And we're all going to be on the Crime Con cruise together. And we want you to come with us. We'll talk about that in a minute. For now, let's get straight to Grace Wong, Courtroom Insider producer. She's been in the courtroom for every second of this over the past two days and she has the latest. Grace, good to see you. Day two of jury selection. What are some of the key points that we may have missed not being in the courtroom?

[00:02:51]>> Well, we have now 12 jurors. Um, and it was a little confusing at the end because um, the clerk called for the last juror who was qualified to be seated as um, jurors 13, but there was a juror from yesterday who came in and ultimately decided that he could not serve. So, he was excused. It was a male juror and uh, he was juror number two, but they did not replace juror number two. They just that's why it was confusing because it was juror number 13. So, at this point, we do have 12 we do have at least 12 jurors. Um, and um and I expect that at some point they will replace juror number two and we'll have a full panel and um six alternates possibly by tomorrow.

[00:03:42]>> So, uh day one there was five and then lost one and then today there was seven >> uh or six.

[00:03:53]or eight. God, you're [laughter] you're asking you're >> I know we're journalism people. We don't do math.

[00:04:00]>> I just keep adding.

[00:04:02]>> But we got to 12. And so we need six more.

[00:04:05]>> Yes, we need six more.

[00:04:07]>> And do we know, Grace, will those six be the alternates or will it be one of those after they're ready to take the case, the judge will choose the alternates?

[00:04:16]>> You know, I don't know. Uh I have covered cases in Massachusetts and um I know that in the last case we covered the alternates was were chosen by uh were chosen randomly. Yeah.

[00:04:29]>> So I think it really depends on the judge and it's a very long case. I mean we're we're talking six to eight weeks.

[00:04:35]And I think if the judge wants these jurors to pay attention, he's not going to designate the alternates, at least not right away because he's going to want them to pay attention for the whole trial. And we're going to hear some pretty dense testimony from psychiatrists and doctors and uh you know medical uh professionals. And I think, you know, that's that's going to be pretty dense testimony that he's going to want people to pay attention to.

[00:05:03]>> What is Lindsay Clancy doing during jury selection? Is she sitting there? Is she chatting with her attorneys? Is she involved in the process?

[00:05:10]Yeah, I think I think she's very engaged. Um because she's uh in a wheelchair and paralyzed from the waist down, she has two nurses that are ever present uh that sit behind the defense table that can tend to her medical needs. Uh but she during jury selection or during the voadier part of it, she sits in the witness box. And this is very interesting because um from what I've seen, she has a very close and personal perspective of every juror that is questioned. I mean, she's no further away from the prospective juror than maybe one or two feet >> and very attentive when they're being questioned and she has a chance to review the questionnaires that they have filled out. So this is this is really an opportunity for her to really make a connection with the prospective jurors and with ultimately the jurors that are seated and who will be deciding the case against her. Um and so during this time uh and it you know it took me a little bit to figure out where she was sitting because she kept being blocked. you know, she was at the witness stand and then all the witnesses, sorry, all the attorneys crowd around the witness stand because that's where they bring in the the the the juror and he stands almost right in front of the witness box so that he can talk to he or she can talk to the judge and to the lawyers who have surrounded the witness box. So, occasionally I'll get a glimpse of her and she'll be reviewing uh the questionnaire or she'll be talking to her attorney. And this last one of the jurors that was picked was a woman in her what looked like she was in her late 60s. And again, these jurors are skewing older than younger. Um I'm seeing jurors that are in their 60s, late 40s, 50s. Um and probably because, you know, if you're younger, it might be hardship. I mean, this is a long trial after all, and a lot of the jurors have expressed some hardship to serve the full 6 to 8 weeks that this trial requires.

[00:07:16]>> And so, I'm I'm seeing older jurors that were are perhaps retired or close to retirement age. And um and there is so far a pretty even split among men and women.

[00:07:28]>> That's an interesting setup. So they're not the prosecution's not at their table and the defense isn't at their table where I've seen it, you know, they'll bring in all the jurors and put them in the jury box or in a group. They're the judge is calling them up one by one from the gallery.

[00:07:43]No, initially the jurors assemble in the courtroom and unfortunately you know there is no uh images that are permitted during jury selection but initially the group of perspective jurors is ushered into the courtroom and they sit in the gallery and then the judge asks five or six group questions and the jurors have to indicate with the red card whether their answer is yes and the judge is interested in identifying those jurors that have a hardship ship have a bias. Uh I mean the first question was is any of you related to Lindsay Clancy or any members of her family? In in this in this group there were two. Anybody related to or has have done business with any of the attorneys in this case? And um and then the other questions have to do with the constitutional rights of Lindsay uh Lindseay Clancy as a defendant and whether they're comfortable with uh understanding that she has the right not to testify or present evidence and that she is presumed innocent until the Commonwealth um proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt. So, they're asked these general questions and if they indicate that they have a bias or they have some um some issue that prevents them from being able to sit for the full 6 weeks, they're um they're questioned about it. I mean, all generally these these jurors have been called in order uh based on their numbers and if they have indicated at some point that there's some issue that they answered yes to, the judge will question them more closely on it. And of course, you know, you can only hear, you can barely hear what's going on because they're at sidebar. And of course, that is not supposed to be public consumption. So, but you do hear occasionally some snippets and and um you know, some of the women who who are presumably mothers have have expressed some hardship and and I don't know whether it's because they're taking care of their of children or, you know, their their parents. um or they can't sit because it's just uh too horrible a case. You are talking about three children, innocent uh unprovoked attacks on them and where they've been, you know, strangled to death, which is, you know, not going to be a pretty sight to have to to view pictures of um the the you know, the the crime, >> right? Yeah, that's that's going to be tough. Okay. So, if tomorrow they get the six jurors that are needed, do you foresee I mean, we could have opening statements Thursday.

[00:10:23]>> We could have opening uh we could have opening statements Thursday. Um you know, I I I've overheard that um the you know the the that they've been asked to come some of some of the jurors that have been seated have been asked to come back on Thursday. So, it seems like um it would appear that the judge is confident that he could get a jury by tomorrow if there's only six more. I mean, it he's going pretty rapidly and he's identifying those jurors that have issues pretty quickly so that they can either be ruled out for cause or the uh lawyers can exercise permpary challenges. Um I know that the the defense has exercised a number of perempary challenges. So, they're whittling away at his choices. Um, you know, preemptary challenges are uh chances to strike a juror that is qualified that you don't want to be seated on this jury for any number of reasons. So, I know the defense has exercised a number of them and so has the prosecution. So, they're getting down to the wire and um hopefully we can we can have a jury seated by Wednesday so we can get uh to the trial. This process is very tedious as you know and and um I think everybody's anxious to to to get moving on it.

[00:11:46]>> Yeah. Any other insights, Grace, that you can give us from being inside the courtroom?

[00:11:51]>> I think um the there's a very strong emotional factor to this trial and it'll be interesting to see how the defense manages that. um you're talking about three very small children that have been murdered and the defense is not going to um you know argue that or argue any doubt as far as that's concerned. I think they they've conceded that uh Lindsay Clancy did kill her children because they are arguing an insanity defense. And you have a very experienced lawyer at this who has tried a number of very high-profile cases based on insanity or or or looking for a um uh where the def where the where the evidence is overwhelming. And the challenge is trying to cut through the emotion of it and getting to whether that he can convince this jury that she was not aware and could not appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions. And the prosecution has to prove that she was very that she was quite sane and could appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions. I mean, that's kind of like the bar for for getting a not guilty by insanity. So, it'll be very interesting to see how the defense manages that. And we are looking at a very experienced attorney that has tried emotional um type cases before and he has a very successful track record at either winning acquitts or getting um uh lesser charges uh lesser convictions on on a lesser charge.

[00:13:38]>> Yeah, Grace, excellent work. We're so glad you're there and uh you can follow along Grace. She's posting updates.

[00:13:46]We'll put the link as the day progresses so that you can see, you know, how many jurors were at and we'll of course keep you updated on courtroom insider over at east idaho.com as well. And when the trial begins, we'll have it for you from the beginning to the end. Thanks, Grace.

[00:14:01]>> Thank you, Nate.

[00:14:02]>> Glad we can have Grace in there uh keeping track of it all and she will be there through the trial. Uh in fact, I may even go out there, too. Uh we'll see how things go. I I do miss being in the courtroom. I got to tell you, there's just something different about being there. But I also have a family and it's also summertime and there's a lot going on. So, Grace Grace has it covered for us. Well, now I want to bring in Matt Murphy. You know, Matt, he's a legal contributor to ABC. He is a uh homicide prosecutor, legal expert. He's done countless cases in California. I first met Matt a couple of years ago. We went on the Crime Con cruise together and he's going to be back this year with uh our guest after him, Josh Ritter, and yours truly. We're all going to be on there. It's going to be so much fun. He is the host with Mark Garagos of a podcast called In the Well on the MK True Crime Channel. They discuss cases just like this one. I wanted to hear Matt's perspective on the Lindseay Clancy trial. Matt, always good to see you. You're looking good. Younger every day. [laughter] >> Uh thanks. getting older every day.

[00:15:06]>> Yeah. All right. Let me talk about what the prosecution has to do in this Lindseay Clancy case because they have to prove first-degree murder here that that um you know this was somewhat at least planned out or thought of before before Lindsey Clansancy killed the kids. But then the defense has to talk about the lack of criminal responsibility verdict. Two two different burdens here. Like what what what are we looking at here when this trial actually begins?

[00:15:31]>> So from a legal perspective, this is actually very interesting. California uses um what's known as the Mcnotton rule, which is 150 years old. That essentially it's the standard for insanity that's used by most states. And under the Mcnotton rule, it is does the defendant understand the nature and quality of their actions? Okay. Does are they prevented from a mental disease or defect from understanding the nature and quality of their actions? So, it's really it focuses only on kind of their mental state. Massachusetts uses a a different rule. It's called the the cool rule um which is based on the model penal code and and I actually wrote this down in my in my prep the and the burden remains with the prosecution. So under in California the burden actually shifts and in most states it will shift to the defense in a bifurcated trial. In other words, you you do one trial with the same jury to establish what happened like did the person actually commit the act and then the second phase is what's known as the sanity phase where then they will determine whether or not they understood the natural nature and quality of their action. So the example that we would always use in our murder cases in California under the Mcnotton rule was it's that quintessential thing of when an angel and a devil pops up on your shoulder and the angel says you know do it or the angel says don't do it and the devil says do it. If the person understands that they are killing a human being then they are legally sane.

[00:16:57]Okay? So if the if the devil says hey go over and kill that person over there or I'm going to blow up the world. they still understand the nature and quality of their actions. They still understand that they're killing a person. Okay? And they and you have a an an obligation um even if you're mentally ill to resist that urge. Okay?

[00:17:18]If the per if the devil says go kill that alien over there or go stab that banana and the person is so mentally um mentally ill that they are that they do not understand that that's a human being then under those circumstances it it could be said they don't understand the nature and quality of their actions.

[00:17:36]Okay. So that's the standard rule that's applied in most states. Under the Massachusetts rule the language is a little bit different. it is they lack the substantial capacity to either number one appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct or conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.

[00:17:56]So it's it's similar but it's a it's different. So what Massachusetts basically gives the defense um kind of two outs and the and the burden remains with the prosecution in Massachusetts.

[00:18:11]it shifts in California, which means the prosecutor must convince the jury as as to as to both of these things. They got to they got to convince the jury that she did it. I don't think that's in dispute in this case, but they also have to they have to satisfy those elements as well that she appreciated the wrongfulness of her conduct um as well as conform couldn't or that she was able to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law. So, one of the things that is very important for people to understand and one of the challenges for the prosecution in this case is separating the idea of mental illness from legal insanity. That is the challenge for any prosecutor under the Mcnotton rule or using Massachusetts Mcool rule. Um, that is making people understand that mental illness is not the same thing as legal insanity. In other words, people are always cuckoo, crazy, loony. Virtually every murder is committed under extreme emotional stress with, you know, the drunken fight with somebody's spouse, the the the the argument with the neighbor that's been driving them crazy for years. All like almost all intentional homicides where one human being kills another are done where somebody could be said to be um not playing with a full deck. Whatever clever euphemism we want to use. Mental illness is present in many many murder cases that that still have complete um legal accountability. Okay. So those things might be considered what's known as a factor in mitigation at sentencing for the court to consider, but that person is still legally responsible even though they suffer from mental illness.

[00:19:54]What's interesting about this case, and I don't think there's any real dispute, this woman was diagnosed with postpartum depression or postpartum related psychosis, I think. Yeah. Which is what the defense is asserting. And this is all very well documented. She was she was prescribed a battery of psychotrophic medications in including cerakquil prozac um and a and a whole laundry list of other things. Um the the question is under these facts to put it simply did she know what she was doing? And and what the the prosecution is going to argue here is um clearly she understood the wrongfulness because she essentially sent her husband on this errand to go and get food and she had previously Googled based on what I what I read she she did some research on how long he would be gone from the home. Another thing to keep in mind here is that, you know, when we see strangulation on TV, um, and and it's kind of the same with stabbings, and you see this over and over again, like somebody will get stabbed and then they're instantly dead. That's not how it works. Uh when somebody's really stabbed, strangulation is probably the most intimate way you can take the life of another human being. Any corner will tell you that unlike TV where it takes about somebody grabs somebody by the throat for about 20 seconds and they're dead and they go on to the next scene, in reality um it takes about 5 to 7 minutes for a human being to die with strangulation. Okay? And maybe it's shorter for for children. Um but but you if you sit and you look at a clock and you count out a minute, that is an eternity. And it takes 5 to 7 minutes per per child per victim in this case of this woman applying constant pressure.

[00:21:42]And remember, she is a nurse. She in fact, ironically, she was a she was a delivery nurse for I believe nine years.

[00:21:49]So this is something that she's going to be very well aware of. takes a long time to strangle somebody. And then she moves on to the next child and then the next child. And of course, her eight-month-old survived, I believe, for three days afterwards. And then she she cut her own throat. She cut her wrist, jumped out the window, and and suffered injuries as a result of that. Um, that is going to be those are really difficult facts, I think, for the defense to get around here because all of that time she can stop doing what she's doing. So she kind there's there is evidence of premeditation deliberation that the prosecution is going to be able to pres present and and I think they should just concede it from my you know putting my prosecutor hat on. They should concede all the mental illness and say absolutely she's mentally ill. Absolutely postpartum depression is real but she she had the ability to control her conduct. She knew it was wrong. she had the ability to control it because she didn't do it in some psychotic break while the husband was still there because she knew he would prevent it. That I think is the argument that we're going to hear from the prosecution. Um and the defense is going to they're going to call I'm sure many experts to talk about the effect of you know the the combination of these psychotropic drugs and how that did cause a psychotic break. Um this one is uh is is is horribly sad. Um, and from the from, you know, putting my defense attorney hat on, um, there are there there have been a lot of studies concerning some of these psychotrophic meds. And we had a Prozac murder in Orange County when I was a DA. It wasn't one of my cases. It was it was handled by a colleague of mine named Jeff Robinson who um, a woman killed her kids in Orange County. And Jeff after reviewing everything believed that in it in fact was a spontaneous psychotic break um on Prozac and and they and they they they negotiated her her um her plea uh uh in accordance with his belief using that prosecutorial discretion.

[00:23:52]This case is a little different than that because there there really is such strong uh evidence of premeditation deliberation. So clearly she is not playing with full deck. Clearly she's suffering from severe mental illness.

[00:24:05]But the prosecution will argue notwithstanding all that she is still responsible for her actions because she planned it. She knew her husband would stop her and then she took her own life.

[00:24:15]Um you know or attempted to take her own life. And by the way, I got to tell you, um they are always so much better in in murder suicides with the murder part than the suicide part. I cannot tell you how many cases I've prosecuted where there's like sort of a a I to use the term halfass, you know, they're they're really good at the killing and then a halfass suicide attempt. You know, jumping out of a second story window. Um I think most people are going to know that's that is typically not going to be enough to kill you. Now, she's paralyzed from the waist down apparently.

[00:24:48]>> Um but uh again, um she's she you know, she's a nurse. Um, I I I I think the prosecution will argue and I think some of the jurors will feel pretty strongly that um, you know, she recognized the nature and quality of of her of her acts and could have conformed her conduct.

[00:25:06]Defense will argue the opposite. I don't know where the chips ultimately fall in this. I would have originally said um, that they will find her that they will find her legally responsible. Um, but then uh, we we watched the Karen Reed case and I don't know what happened in that one. I've got some pretty strong opinions on that. That was defended by my a friend of mine, Alan Jackson, who did a phenomenal job, but I was I was surprised by the verdict in that. And so, um, we'll see what the jury does here.

[00:25:31]>> So, Matt, in a lot of these, well, most every case, optics matter. I mean, if you have a beautiful person or a handsome defendant, people pay attention to that. Here, you have a defendant in a wheelchair. So, the jurors are going to see her, oh, she's in a wheelchair. And then they're going to hear her story, and then they're going to hear from her husband who is testifying on her behalf.

[00:25:52]and has publicly said, "I have forgiven her." And asked the public to forgive her, too. How How does the prosecution overcome that?

[00:26:03]>> Well, there's he's going to be somewhat limited in in some of that testimony in front of the jury. I don't think the court is going to allow him to say, "I've forgiven her and I ask you to forgive her, too." That is that's an appeal to sympathy, and the jury is not supposed to consider sympathy for her um or for the victims. They're not.

[00:26:19]Sympathy is not supposed to play a role in the state of Massachusetts or California or I think any other state.

[00:26:24]They will be specifically instructed.

[00:26:26]So, he's not going to be able to testify that. He will be able to testify very forcefully about the mental illness she was suffering from, the postpartum that she was suffering from. Um, but again, uh that will be it will be somewhat limited by the court and it will be, I think, embraced by the prosecution. they they're effectively going to say absolutely there's no doubt she was suffering from mental illness but she still had the moral and legal responsibility to conform her conduct and not kill her kids. The any any murder case where um a a child is the victim, they are the most emotionally difficult. Um [snorts] uh another thing is uh legally that's a little bit different in Massachusetts. They do they the court has already ruled in this case they're not going to bifrocate the trial. So this is going to be the it's going to be one shot. It's going to be one phase where the jury will have to render their verdict. And that's that's an interesting thing because in a in a bifurcated trial, the jury can kind of exercise some of the emotions by finding somebody guilty knowing that that person will suffer some sort of a legal consequence, whether they're committed for a while. Um they they still there's still a conviction there. And then the second part is they can find them legally insane. this is is more of um my understanding here is that this is it's kind of a winner take all um process and that I think I think that presents some unique challenges for the defense actually because that the jury if they find that the prosecution does not meet its burden then they will acquit her I think completely on everything unless the court instructs on some lessers but there's been no indication of that so far so this is procedurally It is going to be very interesting. It's going to be a very very emotional case. Um people are are split. Um but you know postpartum is a real thing. Um however uh oftenimes it's a real thing. Um and and and it leads to uh abuse um on the part of the person who's suffering from it of other people. And I there are cases that haven't led to murder where people that are legitimately suffering from postpartum also become really awful in their treatment of others. And I I and you know there's nothing worse than than three innocent children losing their lives for this. So it it'll be really interesting to see the way the jury sorts this out at the end. the defense wanted to bring in um a woman who had experienced or several women actually who had experienced postpartum psychosis, but the judge ruled against that. So, why do you think that the judge would not allow that testimony in? And is that an advantage for the prosecution?

[00:29:11]>> Well, that's a good that's a a good ruling for the prosecution and I think I think it's the right call by the judge.

[00:29:16]you know, the the prosecution has the burden, but they also represent the, you know, the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and they also have rights and and they have a right to a fair trial as well. And in California, we call it a 352 analysis, but every state has some version of the same thing. And that is do the does do the probitative does the probative value of this proposed evidence substantially um you know, is it substantially outweighed by the prejuditial effect? So, in California, we would call that a 352 ruling. Massachusetts, they call it something else, but it's it's effectively the same thing. And what the court found was that what somebody else suffered um is is not is is not really relevant to what this woman individually was going through on the day that she murdered her three kids. And you could you could lie in the hallway with a hundred people that have that have suffered from very real postpartum depression or postpartum psychosis. But another thing I I I guarantee none of them have murdered their children either. So um you know that's a that's a tough that's a tough thing. There's also you know there's a a concept of of homicide a certain branch known as philicide where one parent murders the children um to get back at the other parent. And I don't know enough and I I haven't read enough on this case to know how this couple was, you know, how their marriage was, if they're getting along.

[00:30:40]But that's another thing that, you know, if you let in too much of that evidence, you kind of open up the door in the way of precedent to everybody that murders their kids um you know, claiming this or at least every woman um claiming that they were suffering from postpartum.

[00:30:54]Now, this is this was well documented. I don't think that there's any doubt that she was um really severely mentally ill at the time she did it. Um but at the same time, the the question again comes back to did she appreciate the nature and quality of her actions? Did she appreciate the criminality? And was she able to conform her conduct to the law?

[00:31:13]And that's really the call at the end of this case that the juryy's going to have to make.

[00:31:17]>> One of the interesting things the jury will do is go to the actual house. The judge has granted a request to go to the crime scene. the person that lives there asked, didn't want them to, but the judge overruled that. What's the strategy there? I mean, what why have the jurors go out there? Does it help the defense? Does it help the prosecution? How does each side use that to their advantage?

[00:31:39]>> Well, it's tough to say. I think that this helps the prosecution. I think that when the jury actually sees the mechanics that were involved in this that you know that that the distance she have she would have to walk the basement that that in in the home the window she jumped out of. I think that what what the the takeaway is going to be for the jury here is how much time this took and the amount of planning really that was necessary to effectuate these three murders. And um and that's a uh I think that breaks for the prosecution at the end. However, we you know, we've other we've seen other famous cases like uh like OJ where they did a they did a jury viewing of uh OJ's home and that that broke for the defendant in that case. Um you know, somewhat controversially the way they decorated the home to the the argument was to appeal to the demographic makeup of the jury. But I think on this one it this my guess is that this is going to that that's a fact that will be in favor of the prosecution. Whether that makes a difference one way or another. Uh I I it's hard to say, but I think I think that one goes the that's going to help the prosecutor more than the defense.

[00:32:50]>> In the vast majority of cases, it seems at least when we report on them that the comment section are against the defendant. You know, most people are like, "He did it. She did it." This is a case every time we post something about it, I would say the comments are split 50/50, even even maybe 6040 on her behalf, on her defense. Um, and and I think that maybe there might be obstacles, different obstacles for the prosecutor to to have to overcome or do they simply just stick to the facts and like you were saying, say that she was criminally responsible despite her mental status? Well, I think that um a lot of the comments uh you know, when it comes to prosecuting murder cases in the in the world of mental health, it is a very complex labyrinth of different rules in different states. And you know, like just the language in this um whether somebody h lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct, that's a mouthful right there. What what exactly does that mean? they lack the substantial capacity. Those are those are challenging words. I mean, and I' I've been practicing law for 33 years and and reading that and kind of prepping a little bit on this case. That is kind of a headscratcher for me. And I've I've prosecuted murders where the defense was insanity. I'm very well verssed with McNotton rule and the variations. And that is still that's tough, right? So, I think a lot of the comments um are from people that that you might have some sympathy because, you know, it's an awful thing. She must be crazy, but don't understand the difference between somebody being mentally ill and somebody who is legally insane. And that really is the name of the game on cases like this. the jury at the end of this case will understand very clearly if the prosecution does their job that there's a huge difference um that she that you that almost everybody who commits murder is mentally ill in some way or another. That's why they that's why they commit murder, right? Like they're either overwhelmed with anger or jealousy or they're so drunk they have a hard time appreciating what they're doing. That's been, you know, 95% of all murders throughout human history. That a very small percentage are like mafia hitmen or drug drug dealers killing each other or serial killers. That is a minuscule percentage of all homicides. So everybody is nobody is quote unquote playing with a full deck. Um they're all kooky loony whatever. That's the distinction that I think the the prosecution is going to have to hammer home and really focus in on those words.

[00:35:32]Did she appreciate the wrongfulness of what she was doing? Um, well, she waited for her husband. She even kind of lured him away. She sent him on this errand.

[00:35:41]She had she premeditated it. She'd Googled how long it's going to take to get there and get back. She sprang into action. She she went about strangling the kids with all that time. Um, and um, clearly she knew that these were human beings. Clearly she knew that they were her children. Clearly she understood that. And then, you know, I think the prosecution is going to argue she just um she'd made the decision anyway. She was going to kill herself and she was going to take her kids with her. And um you know, the and I I I think that there are very strong arguments once the prosecution establishes the law that you can be mentally ill and still be criminally responsible for what you do.

[00:36:20]I I think that is where um the the argument is going to get interesting and we'll see how they how they do.

[00:36:27]Matt, where can people find your podcast?

[00:36:30]>> Uh, so I have a podcast with Mark Ergos.

[00:36:32]I'm sure we'll talk about this case at some point. It's called In the Well.

[00:36:35]It's on MK True Crime. You can find it on YouTube, uh, Sirius Radio. We just started it and we're we're coming up.

[00:36:42]It's been a lot of fun. And anybody can follow me on um my Instagram, Matt Murphy Law. Uh, and I I wrote a book called The Book of Murder. I got another one that I just submitted. Um, working title. And in fact, if anybody wants to DM me any of your viewers, working title is uh sex and psychopaths uh prosecuting the modern American serial killer. Uh working title. So if anybody hates it, let me know. If anybody loves that, please let me know, too. I answer all my own DMs.

[00:37:09]>> All right. And put put a put a comment down below. Those of you watching, you can put in the comment section yes or no. Should he use the title or not? And if you haven't signed up for the crime cruise, we're going to be there again, Matt. A repeat from from last time.

[00:37:22]>> I can't wait. I can't wait. And by the way, um, and let me just plug our our friend Josh Ritter, who I think is going to be on >> in prepping this in the world of like analysis and everything that's available. I I really like um, Courtroom Confidential because I can listen to Josh. Josh does such a good job of breaking down these these issues and in prepping for this and and I'll do it again on cases in the future. Um, it's just a great place to get information.

[00:37:50]and Josh really knows what he's talking about and he has a very very measured view and he's he's the real deal. So, uh, you know, kudos to my buddy Josh. I I wish he was on with us right now.

[00:38:00]>> And joining us on the Crime Con cruise, our next guest, Josh Ritter. Josh is an experienced criminal defense attorney.

[00:38:09]He is a Fox News legal analyst. He also is the host of his channel Courtroom Confidential on YouTube. You can find it there. He's got a wonderful wife.

[00:38:19]They've got a great crew and and um I I love their show because it's not a lot of uh fluff or or speculation. It's just the facts kind of like what we do here on Courtroom Insider. And so, please welcome Josh Ritter. All right, Josh.

[00:38:32]So, uh this trial's about to begin here in the next few days, I imagine, as they wrap up jury selection. What what's kind of your overall view? Defense attorney looking at at the the facts that we know so far, do they have a good case?

[00:38:47]Well, first let me say that I do not envy the jurors in this case. I I cannot think of a case in recent memory where I felt so conflicted about it and the emotional toil uh toll this is going to take on the jurors is is going to be pretty profound. Um because there's no real clear bad guy here in my view. I I think they're going to look at this and even if they come to the conclusion that they they're going to convict, I don't think anybody's going to be happy about it. But I think from the defense perspective, they do have a very solid case for a couple of reasons. One, this is the type of situation you usually see when you're talking about an insanity defense, a person with no criminal record, no clear motive otherwise. This wasn't like a custody dispute that was really overheated. It wasn't like they were going through a divorce. By all accounts, they were in a in a happy, secure marriage. She had had children before. And in this last marriage or last child, um it became an o overwhelming um mental uh situation for her with this what they're calling postpartum psychosis or postpartum depression. Uh I guess depending on which factors you're looking at. and it was prescribed and it was something she was being treated for. You add to that, uh, Massachusetts in particular has laws that are very favorable to this type of defense. The standard in Massachusetts asked the question about whether or not the defendant lacked substantial capacity, which is a small but very significant difference when you're talking about the full stop lacked the capacity. most jurisdictions when you're talking about what we call the Mcnotton rule or a a traditional um not guilty by reason of insanity defense is that the person could not appreciate the consequences of their actions. They could not appreciate that what they were doing was wrong. In Massachusetts, it asked did they lack substantial capacity, which is less than, right? not not a full inability to appreciate but less than a full ability to appreciate which favors the defendant. And then hugely impactful is that Massachusetts doesn't shift the burden to the defendant. So if they raise this issue, uh it still remains on the prosecution to have the burden to prove that she had the capacity, that she was, you know, quote unquote criminally responsible, meaning she was not legally insane at the time that this was committed. I think you put those together and add in the facts and circumstances specific to this case and I I do think there is a very good shot that they may prevail or if at the very least hang the jury in this case. How big of a of a deal is it that the husband is willing to testify on her behalf and has come out publicly on a GoFundMe page to say, "I've forgiven her. Please forgive her. This is not the woman I married." Uh, I know that you really can't play sympathy card on the stand, but but I would imagine that that matters if the spouse is going to take the stand and say, "I support her." I think it's huge. Now, the prosecution will do exactly what you said and said, "L ladies and gentlemen, this should matter." Zero. This is not the law.

[00:42:21]Whether or not he forgives her does not matter whether or not there's a crime that was committed here. And they will try to drive that point home. But good luck with that when you have a husband who has survived and been through I imagine what is probably the mo nightmarish situation any human being can can fathom. The idea that he came home on a seemingly normal day to his wife being paralyzed outside finding his three children strangled to death and then realizing that the person who did that was his own wife. and for him to have not only the strength to put one foot in front of the other every single day, but then go into court and defend his his wife and say she was not a monster, she was a very sick individual.

[00:43:05]You can as a prosecutor argue all day long how they need to follow the law and strictly follow the law, but that emotional impact I don't think can be ignored. The defense wanted to have women testify who had experienced postpartum psychosis in themselves, and the judge said that that couldn't happen. and the judge didn't grant that.

[00:43:24]Why do you think that is and how would that have helped them?

[00:43:28]I think the judge did make the right call on this because we don't want jurors basing their decisions on other people's experiences, but the experts who are going to be called by the defense are probably going to be able to work that into their testimony anyways by saying case studies that they have treated people with postpartum psychosis or depression and this is how they responded and they have seen other cases or read case studies involving other people suffering from this and this is how they it affected their brain and their brain chemistry.

[00:44:02]So I think that will still come in and I think it's important too because you know we I think we're all fairly familiar with the concept of postpartum depression uh that that it can chemically affect a a a mother who's recently give given birth and her mood swings and her her hormones and everything else. But I think most people who are on that jury are either going to have been a mother themselves or have experienced, you know, having children in their own home as a father and they're going to go, "Okay, well, I realize that's a struggle, but it never brought anyone close to the point of doing something as horrific as this." So somehow bridging that gap for jurors to understand that oh no it can get this serious and it can cause people to you know she said that she had auditory hallucinations to have feelings of self harm. All of those things are are rare but certainly um symptoms of some sort of postpartum psychosis.

[00:45:10]One of the interesting elements of this case is the jury will actually visit the home where this occurred. Uh, how does that help the prosecution or does it help the defense? I I imagine each side will try to use that to their benefit.

[00:45:25]I have thought about this long and hard because you don't see this all that often. Um, usually you only go do a jury view if the crime scene itself plays a significant role. The last time I can think of a good example was with the um Alec Murdoch case where they brought them out to the property because the distance between the house and the dog kennel played such a central role in you know them deciding where he was when that crime was committed. Here I I I struggled at first to understand that and then I thought it's probably beneficial to the prosecution for a couple of reasons. One, I think they want them to understand all of the steps that she took that day, meaning bringing the children down to the basement, the time it took to strangle each one of them independently, then the distance she had to go to go upstairs to uh, you know, I I think she talked to her husband on the phone is what some of the accounts say. and then, you know, prepare herself to try to take her own life. Maybe those distances are are part of the the concept. But then the other thing I was thinking about is they may want jurors to look at that actual distance from that second floor window to the ground because she's they're going to argue, the defense, that she was making a legitimate attempt to take her own life. And maybe seeing that distance, they're going to make the argument that this wasn't a true attempt. That she was trying to stage an attempt on her life, but wasn't a true attempt. Now, it went tragically wrong for her. But I think that might be the argument that the prosecution is going to make because two floors up, I don't know if many people would look at that and go, "Yeah, you would lose your life by doing that."

[00:47:20]And they that might be part of the argument they want jurors to understand.

[00:47:24]Yeah. Yeah. That's going to be curious.

[00:47:26]Um I guess though the defense could argue, yeah, she was so mentally out of it that she just lunged out the window thinking that, you know, it would end it all. I mean, you could go back and forth. So many of these cases, Josh, you you we as the public see, oh, that's a slam dunk. You know, the evidence is the prosecution's going to have it easy. Who who has I know they have the burden as all cases. Who has the easier road here?

[00:47:50]Or or or or I mean, can you say which side has the upper hand?

[00:47:56]No, I I I really I really can't. The more even I think about it, the more I go back and forth. Um, like I said, I think there are some advantages particular to Massachusetts for the defense in this case, but I will also tell you it is very hard for a group of 12 people to allow someone to walk out of that courtroom without a conviction uh who committed a crime this heinous.

[00:48:25]when when they are constantly reminded that a 5, three, and 8mon old child lost their life.

[00:48:33]>> Uh that that is something they're going to struggle mightily with even with a very sympathetic mother, even with all the diagnosis that she does have. I mean, she's not making up the fact that she was under, you know, very heavyduty psychiatric care and even with the father.

[00:48:53]this is something they're going to just struggle with because that's just, you know, the most innocent of lives lost here.

[00:49:00]>> Uh Josh, where can people find you to follow your your show?

[00:49:03]>> Oh, thank you so much. I'm uh please go on YouTube, Courtroom Confidential.

[00:49:09]Love to uh have all of your listeners and viewers come check us out. We follow, you know, all the same cases that you do. We're on top of the Lindseay Clancy case and the Tyler Robinson case and whatever else is in the news. So, thank you so much for having me.

[00:49:23]>> And Josh is not going to go down all these rabbit holes of craziness. He's he's facts, helps you understand the law, and just a common sense good guy.

[00:49:34]You heard Matt Murphy say it earlier.

[00:49:35]You know where else people can find you is the Crime Con cruise.

[00:49:38]>> The Crime Con [laughter] Cruise. Yes.

[00:49:40]>> Are you ready? You got You got You all packed. You got your swimsuit and everything. [gasps] >> Yeah, we're we're excited about it. You know what I will tell you? I was convinced uh Matt had already told me and I should say some kind words about Matt if he if he spoke kindly about me go ahead and return the favor. He's fantastic. So I'm excited because he had already told me it's a good time and then I saw that you were going and I thought okay well now it's one of those things where I can't miss out on it. So yeah, we're looking forward to it. It should be >> it's going to be it's going to be such a fun time and and look looking forward to hearing what you have to say. And have you been on a cruise before?

[00:50:16]>> I've been on a cruise 20 years ago. one time. My wife has never been been on a cruise, so >> Oh, nice.

[00:50:22]>> Yeah, this will be a treat.

[00:50:24]>> Great. Well, I don't think Matt had been on one before the last one, and obviously he liked it enough to go back.

[00:50:29]So, >> all right, Josh. Uh, thanks so much for chatting with me and, uh, we'll catch up again soon.

[00:50:35]>> Thank you so much.

[00:50:36]>> Such interesting perspectives from Josh and from Matt and also hearing from Grace. And I know I mentioned it a few times, the Crime Con cruise, they just announced today one other person who will be on the cruise with us. Let me run through the rundown with you. Uh because this is a a fun event. My wife and I would did this two years ago. Had a great time. And this year it's going to be uh Barbara Butcher, death investigator.

[00:51:06]She's going to be on the cruise with us.

[00:51:08]So is uh Chris Hansen. We also have Josh Ritter. We also have Matt Murphy and we have Katherine Ramsland, the um well-known uh doctor legal scholar who was Brian Coberger's professor. She's going to be on the cruise. All of that. We're cruising November 18th through the 22nd out of Fort Lauderdale going to Cosmal, Mexico on the Celebrity Beyond. Use the code eaten. E A T O N. You get 10% off your standard badge. Erica's coming. Erica's sisters are coming too. And one of the highlights um from the last one was uh uh we had a family feud night which was amazing. Uh it was so much fun. So um and I won. My team won. Not I. Our team won. Family feud. Take that. Come join us on the Crime Con cruise. All right.

[00:52:05]Here's where you can find me. Nate Eaton reporter on Facebook. I'm also on Instagram and also you can find me on X where we're posting updates from the trial as it moves on. And then YouTube, please subscribe if you haven't here to our YouTube channel. Uh our East Idaho News YouTube channel, but also the Courtroom Insider channel is a separate channel and that's where we're posting a lot of stuff with trials and um all sorts of of um interesting crime news.

[00:52:31]Before we go, I want to tell you about Muhammad Allah, a retired professor and award-winning documentary filmmaker who got lost driving home and was never seen again. It was August 15th, 2023. He was driving home to the Laguna Beach area in Southern California from his brother's house in Long Beach when he missed a freeway exit. He called his sister, Mina, at 4:30 saying he was lost, but back on his way, he never arrived. His phone pinged Towers near Brookhurst Street in Fountain Valley, California, then in Anaheim around 8:00 p.m. before going dead. It was on the 605 freeway in Downey driving his 2006 Gold Toyota Avalon. His family has searched tirelessly. Uh the Laguna Beach Police Department is investigating. He was 71 at the time he disappeared, 5'8", around 125 lbs, grayish brown receding hair, and green eyes. He was last seen in denim pants, a gray shirt, and possibly a straw hat. He may suffer from dementia. What was happening between the hours of 4:30 and 8 when he was still in the car and the distance uh from home wasn't that far. And that those are the pivotal hours that investigators need help on. And of course, his family is looking for answers. If you have any information, please contact the police and help bring him home or at least give his family some answers. Thanks so much for being here tonight on Courtroom Insider. Our coverage of Nancy of uh our Lindsey Clansancy, excuse me, continues tomorrow here on Courtroom Insider. And you can uh stay tuned to our channel for all of the latest. Have a good night everybody. Take care. [music] [music] >> [music]