I'm going to Cover the Lindsay Clancy Case Differently… Here's Why

[00:00:01]What's up everybody? Welcome back in another episode of The Lawyer You Know.

[00:00:05]And we are on to, I believe, day three of jury selection in the Lindsay Clancy trial. And we're going to cover this trial, but we're going to do it a little differently than we've ever covered a trial before. And the reason for that is I don't think it is necessary to go into every single gory detail or fact or to uh explain it again or recap it or highlight it. But there are some facts and some details that are incredibly important for us to understand how our justice system works. But not just through the eyes of a criminal defendant in a case where a crime is charged and somebody is being prosecuted. Also the civil side of this, the medical side of this are societal questions we have around insanity type defenses and pharmaceuticals and doctors and criminal defense attorneys and criminal defendants and mental health institutions where people can get impatient treatment from. We're going to have all of those kinds of discussions throughout this case while focusing on the details and facts presented in this trial in a way that we can learn from, that will not be over sensationalized, that will not be overly dug into just to make all of us miserable with how sad the facts of this case truly are, which we can all agree with. But all of that can be true and there can still be so much that we can learn from discussing this case. So, if you guys are interested in that type of coverage, let me know in the comments section. Let me know by hitting that like button and subscribing to the channel and and going through this trial that will be a roller coaster with me. We'll do it together.

[00:01:35]We'll learn from each other. We'll discuss a ton and see do we think changes need to be made and how would we make those changes as a society through the legal system, of course, because that's going to be my expertise and what I focus on. So, I appreciate you guys joining me for this. I know it's not going to be an easy one. Let's get to it.

[00:01:52][music] All right. And I also want to make a bunch of things clear. Today is going to be kind of just an overall thought process on this trial and um what I'm interested in looking at, what the interesting legal questions are that are going to be answered, are going to have to be answered, what it actually means in Massachusetts, the quote unquote insanity defense. Do they have that? Do they not have it? Um, we've talked about it in a bunch of different cases, a bunch of different states, a bunch of different jurisdictions handling it different ways where you don't have it at all. States that have it where you can go down from murder down to manslaughter and you can get those charges reduced or states like Florida where it's an absolute insanity defense state where you can be not guilty by reason of insanity. Um, and what some of the nuances are in Massachusetts. Um, but I think that it's really important and I also want to clarify I am going to be watching the entirety of this trial and when it comes to the breakdowns that I give, I will be giving you a lot of the facts and kind of what happens. I will probably tone them down. I will tone them down, not probably tone them down and leave out details that I find to be unnecessary in order to explain to you what the prosecution is proving.

[00:03:05]That doesn't mean um those facts didn't happen or are not important to the case because one of the things the prosecutors have to do in this case is prove that a charge that a crime was committed, a brutal, horrific crime was committed against each individual child that is a victim in this case. Um and they will be explaining that and that will be a big part of the trial. And anybody that watches the trial, that's going to be, you know, great for you to to follow along with it on your own. But if some people don't want to get into the gory details of the trial, um I still would like to to welcome you guys to the discussion here and what we're going to be breaking down, the questions we're going to be asking and answering uh throughout this case. So, I did want to make it clear I am going to be watching the entire trial and I will be breaking it down. I don't know that I'll do daily, but but multiple videos a week on Lindsey Clancy is the plan currently as long as you guys are interested, as long as you guys have questions about it. If it's not something you want to talk about, I can watch it and think about it all by my lonesome. It's not as fun that way. um it's not as educational to me because I know we have a lot of people with a lot of different backgrounds, um a lot of different thought process and the ways you look at this case and what you bring to the table and and I really want to hear from you guys. Um and so we know that this case is going to center around postpartum depression, mental disease or defect, um some kind of psychosis or psychotic break, uh knowledge of right and wrong, criminal men's rhea, what is the thought process? Can this person form the criminal intent necessary to prosecute and charge these crimes?

[00:04:34]Right? That's what this is going to focus on. So, knowing that, I have had a lot of questions throughout jury selection. Um, and I want to just hit those a couple of those real quick.

[00:04:44]It is not a surprise to me at all that it's difficult to pick a jury for this case. Number one, it has gotten some publicity. It's not the biggest case even out of Massachusetts um in the last few years, obviously, but it does have some publicity. Number one. Number two, just the length of a trial like this can make it difficult. I heard it's going to um it's going to last at least six weeks is what I heard. You know, we know that nobody's actually held to that, but a longer trial is obviously more difficult. And then just the topic area, right? Children being involved. One of the times I was in jury selection for about 5 seconds, there was a crime crime against a child. and those types of crimes, even if it's not high publicity, even if it's not a long trial, can be difficult to find jurors to sit on that for, you know, a million different reasons. Um, so those are all reasons why it can be difficult to sit on a trial like this, just generally speaking. Then people ask me, who is my perfect juror for this case as a criminal defense attorney and as a prosecutor? As a prosecutor, there's not a lot of bad jurors. Um, most jurors, I think, will understand where you're coming from. Maybe you don't want overly analytical jurors that will try to find something where it's not certain, not where it's not, I should say, but maybe go overboard and trying to find something like certain engineers, maybe certain uh medical professionals in this scenario might not be the perfect jurors. But there's not going to be really anybody I'm scared of from the prosecution side. And if I'm a prosecutor in this case, honestly, my thought process would be if I truly believed she intended to do this to her children and did this on purpose, took their life, for anybody that doesn't understand, um that there are multiple murder charges here for Lindsay Clancy.

[00:06:23]Um and the victims are her three children, um then I would go forward and present my evidence um and stick to it and be confident that I'm doing the right thing and getting justice for those kids. But if a jury really does find that her mental disease or defect necessitated a uh not guilty verdict and that she needed impatient treatment versus prison, I'm not going to say I think I'd be okay with that because obviously if you're a prosecutor, you believe what you're prosecuting and that you can prosecute it and win beyond reasonable doubt. But there would be a part of me that would feel like, okay, maybe that really is the justice appropriate for this case. And that's where I think this one is. A lot of insanity defenses are big zeros. You have no chance to win. It's almost a joke. It's a hailmary. This one doesn't feel like that, but it's also not a slam dunk guaranteed win. Um because those there are some cases like that that are slam dunk guaranteed wins and I'll just tell you how they deal with Florida because we've had some of those. It doesn't even go forward and the prosecutors sometimes agree with us and their doctors agree with us. And we've had that happen in a murder case um where somebody went to treat a treatment facility and was out just a couple years later and it was a very legitimate insanity defense. And I'm saying that all while also being a human being who really struggles with the insanity defense. Um, just just just generally speaking and I want to have an open conversation and I know people have strong feelings on both sides of this, but I want you guys to think about this as just my crew here.

[00:07:57]Um, and I want us to discuss this in the chat. I want to read the chat and just kind of talk through how we feel about the insanity defense. And in my head, if I was, you know, Zar of the world or of the legal process and could just wave my magic wand, Zars don't have wands, but you guys get what I'm saying. Would I think that there's a better way just systematically throughout all 50 states to handle this? And some things that have popped into my mind and that, you know, we lawyers have discussed is, you know, the insanity defense is necessary because it's cruel and unusual punishment for people that have a mental disease or defect and don't really know right from wrong or know what they're doing or understand the consequences of their actions. To to punish them with prison for the rest of their life or the death penalty is just inappropriate and I understand that. Um, and then there's the other side of it doesn't matter at all. Human beings make choices. We all have difficult things going on. We all have problems in our past. We've all had to overcome things and we all don't kill people. So the people that kill people need to go to prison for the rest of their life or have the death penalty depending on, you know, what state you're in. Those are kind of the two ends of the spectrum.

[00:09:02]I I think there's a lot of middle ground and a lot of states have that middle ground. And I kind of understand I think I like some of the states that have you can reduce the charges, but they're still going to prison. They're still going to get that punishment. Um I I understand, you know, the states that have the not guilty by reason of insanity. I understand the people that have a problem that somebody could get out just a couple years later whenever they're not a danger to themselves or society and you know medical professionals make those calls and people get out. I understand people that have a problem with that because there are real victims, real people affected, real problems caused, real consequences.

[00:09:36]Um so I just I guess where I'm at is I don't know. I I fluctuate. Uh, and that's somebody who is a criminal defense attorney who has had the insanity defense is something that, you know, we have argued at our firm before on cases. Um, and that that's kind of how lawyers argue and deal with the law and statutes the way that they are, not the way that they want them to be or the way they wish they would be or the way they would make them if they were um, the person creating the rules and the laws. So, I am really interested to hear your guys' thoughts around that as respectfully and graciously as we possibly can because a lot of people are dealing with a lot of because I've had a lot of people reach out to me that are part of our crew and the chat, you know, and I can't watch this case for that reason or this one's going to be really tough to watch because, you know, I've dealt with this or I've dealt with that.

[00:10:19]Um, I've also had a lot of people ask me for Whitney's opinion on this one and we may get um that happening as well. Uh, because, you know, I do think that there's something there's certain things guys just can't understand. Um, and when it comes to postpartum depression, that really feels like something we can't understand. Um, and I think a lot of women struggle with it in different ways, different feelings, even if you don't call it postpartum depression, just different feelings that, you know, me as a dad two times. Like, I can't even understand that. Everything was amazing. It was great. It was the best.

[00:10:50]It was perfect. It was euphoric. It was, you can't explain the love you have for another human being that you didn't know 5 seconds ago. Like, I'll just say for me, maybe not all guys, maybe some guys understand it more than others. It's hard. It's a hard thing for me to grasp and understand. Um, and I think we're going to have a lot of uh discussion around that and I I think that there we're going to have a lot of experts um discussing that. So, be ready for that.

[00:11:15]And we are going to focus on that. So, when I do break down facts um and when I do break down and recap parts of the trial, it's not all going to be expert analysis and testimony. That will be part of it. that will be an important chunk of this, but it will also be the facts that are important. And some of those facts are going to be brutal.

[00:11:38]They're going to be sad. They're going to be hard to listen to. So, don't think that there's going to be none of that, you know, in these recaps. There will be because certain facts, what did Lindsey Clancy do before, during, and after these crimes were committed? Was there planning? Was there premeditation? Was there an attempt to cover it up or to make sure nobody saw her? Did she try to cover it up after the fact? Was there consciousness of guilt that she knew what she did was wrong and that she knew what she did throughout this entire process and it wasn't a psychotic event?

[00:12:08]All of that to me is, and here's the other thing that we need.

[00:12:12]Okay, this is this is really good.

[00:12:14]Postpartum depression is not the same thing as postpartum psychosis. I understand that. Let's be open to conversation. The exclamation point is, you know, the reason I'm bringing this up is I like this conversation. We're all going to discuss things, talk about things. we all don't have the same knowledge and understanding as the other people. So, let's help each other understand and not condemn people for maybe thinking differently or or not understanding what we may understand. U I think that's really important. Um Peter, how can the jurors evaluate the medical experts in this matter? Because I'm afraid this will come down to battle of the experts. The lawyers and the experts need to explain it in a way that the jury understands. That's it. That's how our system is set up. And if you can't and it's too doo heady and mumbo jumboy and doesn't really make sense, then it's not enough to prove something, you know, and I'm okay with that. I'm okay with that reality.

[00:13:02]Uh Rebecca said, "Well said, Peter."

[00:13:04]Yeah, I appreciate it. And I know Rebecca, medical expert. We're going to have plenty of those in our chat and I appreciate the help that they add to the conversation. You don't have to agree with them either, just like we're going to, you know, hear from experts. We may agree with some, we may not agree with some. Khloe said, "Peter, I appreciate you doing it this way." um as it could be triggering for some people, including myself. So, thank you. Yeah, including myself. I don't know. I I have kids.

[00:13:27]It'd be really hard for me to sit on a jury like this, right? I'd be able to.

[00:13:30]I'd feel confident in my ability to do it. But that brings me to kind of, you know, what is the perfect juror? People were asking, you know, what's the perfect juror? For the defense, I could think of an argument against every single type or category of person, but I actually think in this case, I might welcome medical professionals who understand how this works. Um, women who understand postpartum depression, I think could cut either way, right?

[00:13:55]Postpartum issues, I'll say. I don't know. I don't know what the correct word is. I'm not saying psychosis, depression, whatever it is, right? Just the feelings that happen after the after giving birth um and having kids and being a mom and with a lot on your plate and three little kids, right? I I think that that I I would welcome that. I would definitely want people around Lindsay's age. I think that would be um something I would look for. Um, anybody who has any experience with mental health issues in their family and their past, themselves, somebody they know or love. Um, I I think that would be something that I would look for, somebody that could not sympathize with her and not automatically think that she's right.

[00:14:32]Because again, you have to realize that like when we have cases with, you know, somebody with a back surgery, everybody always assumes, well, somebody else that had a back injury in the past for, you know, they would always be good for us. Everybody always thinks, "Oh, anybody with a back injury would be good for somebody that we have a car accident with a back injury." But not always.

[00:14:51]Because we have a lot of people that are like, "Yeah, I have a back injury and I've dealt with it perfectly fine. I don't have pain. Why would I give money for that?" And some people may say, you know, I went through exactly what Lindsay Clancy went through and I didn't hurt my kids, so I don't feel bad for her. Forget her. So, that can be a bad juror for you. Right? So, there's really no perfect juror, but just that's the analysis that lawyers go through is we're we're want jurors with open mind that'll see it, see the evidence, and not jump to a conclusion. Um, that's really what you want is people that will be open to something other than she's automatically guilty.

[00:15:22]So happy to make alive. Being from Boston, these cases, Karen Reed and Lindseay Clancy are truly emotional. I truly want to hear your take. This case will prove a significant change prove to make a significant change in Massachusetts and possibly the country.

[00:15:34]And I believe you're probably talking about uh the civil lawsuits that I hear are out there. I have not read them. I don't want to read them. Although I hear I did hear Scar Pacio um who is a superstar lawyer there uh is handling the civil claims which is very interesting to me. But let me tell you this whether it's medical malpractice or something else that her doctors prescribed medication wrong or you know didn't give her the help they should have. I heard there's going to be some facts about maybe she checked herself into a mental health uh facility before the crimes occurred and she knew she was having these issues and was basically begging for help and nobody helped her.

[00:16:09]Whatever those lawsuits are, those lawsuits can listen, hear me, okay?

[00:16:14]Because we're gonna talk about this throughout, but I want to make sure this is kind of the overarching conversation.

[00:16:19]Those lawsuits, those civil lawsuits can be successful. She can win. Her children, her estate, the dad, whatever, multiple different kind of claims for different plaintiffs, depending on what they're alleging, can be successful in the civil jurisdiction and she can still get convicted.

[00:16:39]things could have been done to her that were horribly wrong, that were a cause or a contributing factor to what happened to her children and she can still get convicted. That is possible legally speaking. It doesn't automatically mean if she is convicted that all that goes away, just like it doesn't mean if she's not convicted that they automatically win, right? Different jurisdictions, different allegations, different angles, different legal arguments. So, I want to make sure we understand that as we're listening that it can be two different things we're listening to here. This is not only an insanity defense in my opinion. It's much deeper much deeper much more and deeper implications here. No, I agree. I I mean we're going to learn some really sad realities of society that we live in. Um really sad realities around mental health, around treatment, around pharmaceutical um uh drugs. I think we're going to learn a lot. That that's my guess. I don't know.

[00:17:32]Again, I'm not an expert on this case at this point. Would overmedicated be the same as insanity? So, it's very interesting you asked this, Ally. Um, I want to read here so that we can actually talk about what it what it is in Massachusetts. People get mad when you say insanity defense because it's not technically insanity defense, but for lay people, for for our purposes, for our conversations, it's not going to bother me if anybody says insanity defense. And I may use it as that as well. Okay? because it is not one of those in Massachusetts where it just reduces the charges where the defense proves something and wins that she you know has this defect not a able to do that and instead of murder it's manslaughter like we talked about in Mickey Stein that that might be the argument that's how they do it in Kentucky that's not Massachusetts there is a way for her to be not guilty if the state cannot prove all of the elements and the way they might not be able to prove all the elements is with you know what we will call an insanity defense for our conversations we're going to talk about intoxication voluntary intoxication involuntary intoxic ation how that works with this insanity defense because we're going to read a jury instruction. I think it's from like 2022 um in Massachusetts. I don't think it's changed. If it has, we'll discuss that as the trial continues. Peta, what about the woman in South Florida who just beat the M if her child due to CO 19 insanity, even the state's doctor agreed she won't ever leave the mental hospital without a judge's uh discretion in Massachusetts? Yeah. uh at Ford Dread. I don't know the specific case you're talking about, but I I know more than five cases in Florida like that that feel just unbelievable to listen to and to hear um the tragedy that occurs.

[00:19:05]And that's why I I like these open discussions and I like I'm okay if people say I think the law is wrong. I don't think there should be insanity defenses or I think there should be but I think it should do this like lessen the charges or I think they should be able to go home because it's cruel and unusual punishment to do this to people that can't control it. I'm open to these conversations and I don't think just because the law is the way it is with these circumstances that it's not something that we can question.

[00:19:31]Postpartum is so hard and difficult.

[00:19:33]Suffer from PPD with my first go from seeing your OB every month to once and the appointment it's in and out. No questions about how you're doing. We need better support from others. You know what? I don't just think this even stops at postpartum, right? I just think that we as a society need and I think we have to do our best to not rely on other people. As as harsh as that may sound, we need to make sure we are seeking out help and we need to see things happening to other people like Lindsay Clancy who we'll see. It sounds like she was also trying to seek out help. Not stop. fight for yourself. Um, you know, fight for answers. Fight for more time with doctors, for with mental health professionals, with family members that might be able to help with finding stuff, you know, online that may help you um with it. I mean, I I I do agree and I think people need support in the when they go through big things in life and, you know, we as a society need to care about that and try to make it as accessible as possible. Um, so I agree with that and there's no perfect world, right? It's easy for somebody to be like, "Oh, they need to spend an hour with each each patient." It's like, "Well, if they spend an hour with each patient, they're not able to treat as many people." Um, and if they're not able to treat as many people, they're not able to help as many people. And now, instead of seeing your doctor once a week, you see him once a month. So, you know, there are obviously logistical issues with this, but I agree. You know, the conversation has to be had, and we have to continue to focus on it. I do not consent to being called that name.

[00:20:59]Your channel rocks. Uh, Treyos, cheers.

[00:21:03]Thank you.

[00:21:05]Um, I hear you. I agree. Women's health in particular. Yeah, I just think that there's a lot of things that we're going to be able to talk about today or not today, but in this entire trial. Susan, thank you so much for gifting Five Lawyer You Know memberships. All right, let's take a second now and talk about what they're actually going to be litigating in this trial.

[00:21:29]Because unlike many trials, there's not going to be a lot of fight about whether or not a crime was committed. Now, we've seen we've seen some versions of this, but let's take Brian Walsh for example.

[00:21:38]They still kind of picked some things apart and you know, did he actually do this? And what is what actually happened? Did he actually dispose of the body after the fact? Whatever. In this case, I don't expect Lindsay Clancy's team and I've heard she has one of the best lawyers in Massachusetts, which that'll be really fun. I love watching good lawyering. Um, they're not going to fight that she did this.

[00:21:56]The state is still going to have to prove that she did this, that she was responsible for taking the lives of her three beautiful innocent children.

[00:22:05]So, there will be evidence of that.

[00:22:06]There needs to be evidence of that.

[00:22:08]Balancing how you do that as the state to not poison the jury against her and just think she's so horrible. How could she do this? Nothing else matters is interesting. Will they try to do that?

[00:22:18]Will they not? Can you blame them if they do? But what they're really going to focus on is the mental state, the criminal men's rehea. Could she form that criminal intent? Okay, that's going to be the big question. So, let's pull up now um this document I want to read together.

[00:22:40]It's going to give us a good idea. Uh even if it's a little bit different now, uh I I think this is probably the same as it is now from everything I've seen and read about this case. Um, but I just really liked the way this spelled it out. And these jury instructions can change and lawyers draft them different ways and they don't always sound exactly the same. Whoops.

[00:22:59]So, what am I doing here?

[00:23:02]This the window just took up my whole screen. Okay, here we go. Lack of criminal responsibility. If the Commonwealth has proved the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, the Commonwealth must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible at the time of the alleged offense. Under the law, a person is not guilty if they lacked criminal responsibility when they committed the offense. This is sometime referred to as not guilty by reason of insanity. There is no burden on the defendant to prove that they lacked criminal responsibility. We are not going to go through every jurisdiction, the different way they do it, the Mcnoten rule. We can talk about some of those and I'll talk about the model penal code rule and the Mcnotton rule and things like that. Um, but we're going to focus on what you have to because some some states the defense has burden to prove this.

[00:23:48]Sometimes they're shifting burdens.

[00:23:50]Defendant proves this, then the state has to prove that. We're going to focus on Massachusetts. The Commonwealth may meet its burden of proving the defendant was criminal responsible for the conduct in either of two ways.

[00:24:03]The first way is for the comm to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense. So now we're getting to one of the elements that must be there in order for the insanity defense to be successful in Massachusetts. There must be a defendant who suffers from a mental disease or defect. If she doesn't, then they have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. If there is a mental disease or defect, then let's keep going. A mental disease or defect need not fit into a formal medical diagnosis. That's important as well.

[00:24:51]It's a legal term, not a medical term.

[00:24:53]It does however include an abnormality that presents itself only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial behavior.

[00:25:04]So it can't just be that. It can't just be, you know, I think the reason they put this in here, if you want my opinion, is for the people that say there's obviously something wrong with you if you commit these crimes, right? Which I I'd be open to that conversation. A lot of these crimes that we talk about, a lot of these cases we talk about, I'd be open to there's something off there.

[00:25:32]No normal, whatever that means, person would do this. And so when people say things like that and it's like there's obviously something wrong with you if you commit these crimes, that's not a mental disease or defect.

[00:25:45]Okay? And that's why I thought I just really like the verbiage of this.

[00:25:49]It is for you to determine from the evidence. This is speaking to the jury.

[00:25:52]Jury instructions. It is for you to determine from the evidence whether the defendant had a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense. The second way for the commonwealth to prove a defendant was criminally responsible for their conduct is for the commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Don't forget that. So they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she does not have a mental disease or defect. So the the defense puts forth some evidence that could be enough to get over the reasonable doubt.

[00:26:17]One expert, right? And that's also where it's like if it's a battle of the experts, okay, and this is this is the legal analysis here. If there's a battle of the experts and it's like um I I don't know. I I feel like the state's expert I believe a little bit more than the than the defense expert, but I'm not positive.

[00:26:39]That means the state's expert did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. So, even if you don't believe the defense's expert and you don't think that the defense has proven that Lindsey Clansancy has a mental disease or defect, that still could be enough to get first pass the first prong because the defense doesn't have to prove it.

[00:26:58]The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not suffer from them. Are you tracking with me? If you guys get confused, let me know in the chat. I'm scanning the chat a little bit as I read here.

[00:27:12]Okay.

[00:27:16]Even if the defendant suffered a mental disease or defect at the time of the offense, the defendant nonetheless retained the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct and to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.

[00:27:37]Okay, so this is kind of step two. Even if there is a mental disease or defect or if the state can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is not one.

[00:27:45]Okay.

[00:27:48]The defendant they can prove that the defendant retained the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct and to conform that's an and to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.

[00:27:59]So this is where the consciousness of guilt, the actions after the fact can be really important because it's very different and I'm not getting into the fact specifically this case, but let's just say a mom took the life of her child and her husband gets home. She hugs him. She kisses him. She puts food on the table. She puts the child who's no longer alive in one of the chairs and the husband walks into the dining room and falls to the ground and cries and weeps because he sees what happened to his child. Do you think that mother understood the wrongfulness of what she had done and the criminality of what she had done versus a mom that does it and buries him in the backyard and lies to everybody and says they go away to camp or a mom that flees to Hawaii and gets married, right? The conscious of guilt after the fact can help prove these types of elements. So there will be some some gr just like horrible sad tragic details that will be important to prove these elements of what we're getting into with this insanity defense. And I think it's important for us to understand this as an overall theme and thought process going into this trial so that we know what we're looking for when we watch the trial.

[00:29:11]Let me answer a couple questions here.

[00:29:13]Uh psychiatric nurse practitioner here.

[00:29:15]Postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis can certainly be construed as separate diagnosis. However, someone can certainly become psychotic in a depressive episode. So, it's interesting, Zeke, that you said this because as I read through this jury instruction more, this is kind of what pops into my head. Like, you can have this um mental disease or defect and not act a certain way and then you can act a certain way because of different things that happen, other traumatic events, lack of sleep, medication changes, overmedicated, wrong medicated combinations. Right? So, there's a lot of things that can kind of I think see those interacting, but we'll see. I think it's interesting the way people view this case versus the Chad Dorman case, the dad who had a mental break and killed the three boys in Ohio.

[00:29:59]So, I remember when this case first happened, I don't know exactly where it is right now, but I think the So, here's here's you my just completely off-the-wall opinion. And I don't speak for the the entire chat or society as a whole obviously, but I think one of the differences is when you can connect it to a mental disease or defect that people feel like they understand more like postpartum, psychosis, depression, whatever it may be. If you have that to grasp onto, it's easier than people to understand just one psychotic mental break either out of nowhere or because of stress or lack of sleep, which have been used successfully in the past by the way. That's why I bring up stress and lack of sleep or traumatic events. I think some people find it easier to connect certain mental def defects or diseases than others to an insanity defense.

[00:30:41]Uh, please listen to Dr. Joseph's evaluation of her meds and psych appointments. It's eye opening. So, here's what I may do that after the trial. I don't want to do it before the trial. I want to try to focus on what the experts actually say in this trial.

[00:30:53]Uh, that that's what I'm going to do personally.

[00:30:57]You can baker someone who you feel is 100% needs it. However, no mental health facilities available. That is only one of the problems here. Yeah. And honestly, postbaker act is is tough here as well. And people are nervous to bake act because of everything that comes with it after the fact. Like to baker a family member or a loved one can be really difficult because it can be life ruining and that person may hate you forever. And again, you have to make that call. And I know you know you've dealt with decisions like this. So you got to make the call and not everybody has the stomach for it to do the right thing or to know what the right thing is. Nurse of interest PSA. This channel is for our community, not for just espousing facts. Thank you for remaining on topic. We always will. We always will. And I agree with you. It is a conversation for us to understand how the legal process works, how the facts mesh with that, maybe how things should be sometimes, which I'm okay having that conversation as long as we can always understand how it is. I like to say we lead with grace and truth, right?

[00:31:55]Because grace is really important and understanding people and being gracious.

[00:31:59]even some people that want to spout off or, you know, go off or be jerks or whatever it may be. But we will always lead with truth as well. Um, I'm not going to act like something's not true just because I don't like it or just because it's hard to deal with. Um, because I I believe in truth and I think it's important. Um, yeah, and I know you're probably talking to some people going off in the chat. Um, so I get that, but I I want to reiterate and echo what you said. So, thank you, nurse of interest. A stalwart here. Uh, Zeke, the the the nurse is back. um nurse practitioner. Uh the the polyfarm pharmacy is the concern here in psychiatry. There is a pill for every symptom imaginable. When we just throw meds at symptoms, bad things can happen.

[00:32:38]Rational versus irrational polyarm pharmacy. So I'm not the smartest guy in the room.

[00:32:44]You may have to define some terms that you use. You're you're kind of indicating to me that I think you're going to have to define some terms that you use in the future. But what I'll say is I know I have my personal feelings on uh pills and the way we do treatment here for a lot of things, especially for mental health. Um I'm not a big fan, but I also know some stories of people that say it changed their life in a positive way. So again, I I like to be open to conversations, but I know I have my personal feelings and I agree the pill for everything just logically doesn't seem to make sense to me, but I'm not I'm not a doctor. So I will leave it to you guys to discuss it in the chat as well.

[00:33:22]Okay. To establish that the defendant had the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct, the commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant appreciated, understood. How do you explain that? How do you prove that? Right? That is the defendant knew or understood in some meaningful way.

[00:33:41]So, this is how lawyers try to dig deeper and go beneath the surface and um and we have situations where it's like the first word is not specific enough.

[00:33:50]So, we've got to keep defining it down, which is what they're doing here.

[00:33:53]Understood in some meaningful way that their conduct was either illegal or wrong. So, if you think you did something illegal or wrong, what would you do next? And if the defendant did that, the state can try to use that to prove this element. To establish that the defendant had the substantial capacity to conform their conduct to the law's requirements, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any mental disease or defect that may have existed at the time of the alleged offense did not deprive the defendant of their ability to behave as the law requires. That is to obey the law. And then we're going to talk about uh consume drugs or alcohol is supplement one. We'll get there eventually.

[00:34:28]To summarize, if the Commonwealth proved beyond reasonable doubt the defendant did not have a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense, the Commonwealth has satisfied its burden of proving the defendant was criminally responsible. By the way, in case you haven't figured it out yet, they don't give these types of instructions in every trial. It's only when you have the insanity type defense situation. That's why we have these additional because, you know, you're like, well, I never heard them say they had to prove that in the past. It's because if it's not an issue, then it doesn't come up.

[00:34:54]Alternatively, if the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the defendant did suffer from a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense, the defendant nonetheless retained the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct and to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. The commod satisfied its burden. So those are the two kind of prongs, mental disease or defect and then the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct and the ability to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.

[00:35:25]Remember that there is no burden on the defendant to prove that they lacked criminal responsibility at the time of the offense. The defendant does not have the burden even here when it feels like an affirmative defense because that can be one of the differences between Massachusetts and other states. Rather, the burden is on the commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt both that the defendant committed the offense and that the defendant was criminally responsible at the time they committed the offense. So, I am wondering, we'll see how it goes in Massachusetts, if the prosecution is going to get ahead of it or if they have to wait for the defense to present some kind of evidence of the mental disease or defect before they can respond and will a lot of it be done in rebuttal. I don't know uh procedurally how they handle that. So, we'll see.

[00:36:08]If you have a reasonable doubt whether the defendant committed any one required element of the alleged offense, you must find the defendant not guilty. Meaning they have a mental disease or defect and that they don't appreciate the illegality or the wrongfulness of their actions, then the state didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. If you have doubts about that, if you have a reasonable doubt whether the defendant was criminally responsible at the time of the offense, you must find the defendant not guilty uh by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. Okay, that's the verbiage here they use. Instead of by reason of insanity, it's by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. And you've heard McNottton in other states. Mule Macau is basically what they use here in this case in in [snorts] Massachusetts, I should say. All right. Once the issue of insanity has been raised, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane at the time of the crime.

[00:37:04]Okay. So, the issue of insanity has to be raised first by the defense.

[00:37:12]What else does it say here? Um, any evidence which if believed might create a reasonable doubt concerning the defendant's criminal responsibility at the time of the crime.

[00:37:20]Testimony is not always required to raise such a doubt if the defendant may rely on the facts of the case.

[00:37:26]Observation of lay witnesses. Okay. So, here are some supplemental instructions.

[00:37:29]And if you remember intoxication, okay, intoxication here, drugs, alcohol, etc., a defendant lack, a defendant's lack of criminal responsibility must be due to a mental disease or defect. intoxication caused by the voluntary con consumption of alcohol or drugs is not by itself a mental disease or defect where a defendant lacks a substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct to or to conform their conduct to the law solely as a result of voluntary intoxication. The defendant is criminally responsible. So you can't just get drunk or high and say well I don't know what I'm doing anymore.

[00:38:10]However, the consumption of alcohol or drugs may trigger or intensify a defendant's pre-existing mental disease or defect.

[00:38:18]So, will this be a case where prescription drugs, something else connected to this, whether voluntarily taken or prescribed or however they're going to try to define it, triggered or intensified the pre-existing mental disease or defect?

[00:38:36]That's a big question.

[00:38:40]If it does so and the mental disease or defect then causes the defendant to lose substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness, then they're not criminally responsible.

[00:38:49]There is one exception to the principle just stated.

[00:38:53]A defendant who loses the capacity I just described after consuming drugs or alcohol who knows or had reason to know that that consumption would trigger it.

[00:39:01]meaning if you know you black out and do crazy stuff when you drink x amount of you know uh beers or whatever and you continue to choose to do that you can't use this which again interesting for other cases and other situations we talked about I don't think we're going to see that issue here maybe we will maybe they're like you should have known you know you snap whenever you take these pills you should have stopped taking the pills and then we have the discussion of doctor told her to take the pills she had to decide whether to take them or whether or not to take them maybe we'll have those kinds of discussions >> [snorts] >> Uh, I think that was the last part I wanted to read.

[00:39:43]Okay. Consequences of your NGI verdict. Your decision must be based solely on the evidence and the law of this case without regard to the possible consequences of your verdict. You may not consider sentencing or punishment in reaching your verdict. You are however entitled to know what happens to a defendant if found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. You know what's funny is they still have it called NGI, not guilty by reason of insanity up here, but a judge may order the defendant to be hospitalized at a mental health facility for a period of observation observation and examination.

[00:40:19]During that period or within 60 days of the verdict, the district attorney or other appropriate authorities may petition the court to commit the defendant to the mental health facility or to Bridgewwater State Hospital for this case initially for a period of 6 months. At the end of the six months and every year after, the court reviews the order of commitment if the defendant is still suffering from a mental disease or defect and is still dangerous. because you can still have the mental disease or defect but no longer be dangerous.

[00:40:50]Then the court will order the defendant to be continued to be committed.

[00:40:54]There is no limit to the number of such renewed orders of commitments as long as the defendant continues to be mentally ill and dangerous. So they have to be mentally ill and dangerous because that's a big deal, right? Some people suffer with mental illness for their entire life, but they're not always dangerous even if they were dangerous at some point in the future. And how do you guys feel about that? Do you trust it?

[00:41:14]Do you trust a doctor or judge or anybody to make that decision and having them come back out into society? I think it's a fair question. If these conditions continue, the defendant may remain committed for the duration of his or her life. If though at some point the court determines that the defendant is no longer mentally ill and dangerous, so now it's saying they have to find that they're no longer mentally ill and dangerous. I think that's the wrong um verbiage there, but the defendant will be discharged.

[00:41:42]The verdict, sorry, the district attorney must be notified of any hearing and the district attorney may be heard at any such hearing. Meaning, they can go argue and be like, "Judge, this is wrong. We can't do this." However, the final decision on whether the commitment or release, the defendant is always made by the court with the help of experts.

[00:41:58]Okay? The court's not just going to look at somebody, ask them a couple questions, and be like, "Go ahead." We have to present as attorneys. This is what they're saying. This is why they're better. Listen to everything they're doing. Look at what the mental health doctors and and nurses and everybody says. you know, you should let them out.

[00:42:14]So, while you're not supposed to consider this as a juror, I have a question for the chat. Would you be able to ignore that?

[00:42:23]If you knew that this person was never going to prison, even though they have admitted to taking the lives of their three children, would you be able to vote not guilty if you really felt like she didn't understand the wrongfulness of what she was doing or that it was a criminal action?

[00:42:44]Because seems like in Massachusetts, they're going to spell it out to them.

[00:42:48]And it can be twofold, right? It can cut both ways. They want to make sure the jury knows if you say not guilty of insanity, this person's not going home.

[00:42:54]They're not going home. No, no, no, no, no. But they're also not going to prison. They're going to a mental health treatment facility and they could be out, I think they said in 6 months to a year.

[00:43:04]Probably not, but they could.

[00:43:10]I'm interested to read what you guys think if you'd be able to do that. A lot of you saying yes.

[00:43:16]So, this is a case where I'm wondering, how are we going to feel about the defendant after we hear the evidence?

[00:43:22]Are we going to hate her, despise her, hate her guts for what she did to her kids? Are we going to feel bad for her because of what she's went through, what she's gone through? Is the jury going to feel bad for her, think she already has a life sentence when they see her in a wheelchair as a result of the actions that day?

[00:43:36]Is it going to be a people feel bad, but understand, you know, she committed this crime, you got to convict her.

[00:43:44]Some people are saying I really don't know if I could.

[00:43:48]So, I'm also seeing in the chat 10 women, seven men, 17 jurors. I think they want 18. Everything I saw projection-wise, I was guessing they were going to have a jury by the end of the day today, but I've also heard some conversations that they might not um that they might not do openings until Friday. So, I don't know if that's confirmed. I don't if anybody has that schedule, let me know.

[00:44:15]Uh, that's not true. Their hospitals told her a thought of harming herself won't work. They asked her if she had a plan to follow through. She was turned away multiple times until the I don't know what you mean by that's not true.

[00:44:28]So, I haven't said a single fact that I am I am standing on business is true in this case, except that she took the lives of her three kids. Um, so I I don't know. I'm open to whatever the facts are presented in trial.

[00:44:41]Peter sent you psych analysis video that documented what Lindsay and her fam documented reported when begging for treatment and to stop some meds causing major problems. It was eye opening. I really appreciate it. Um I I do I'm not going to read it before the trial though. I really want to go into this trial without already having my feeling of what I think should happen or you know feeling some sort of way towards the defendant. The one thing I did hear that has already kind of affected me that I wish it didn't is I have heard, this could be wrong as well. I have heard that her husband is on her side and asking for forgiveness and understanding for what she went through and potentially going to be a witness for the defense. So, I don't know the answer. Um, to me, I'm that that's very very interesting to me.

[00:45:28]Uh, the polyfarm pharmacy issue is directly connected to a for-profit healthcare system. We need universal healthcare to promptly help with mental health issues. Yeah, that's a whole other discussion, right? The universal healthcare.

[00:45:40]That has good arguments on both sides, I think. Um, but I'll tell you right now, I hate the way it's set up right now.

[00:45:45]You go into a doctor, it's the only place you go and you have no idea how much it's going to cost. You don't know if they're going to take your insurance or how much your insurance is going to pay. You don't know if you're going to go into medical debt because of this.

[00:45:54]Um, you get hurt in this way and you can go to this doctor, but that same doctor won't treat you if you got hurt from this or in a different way. I just I hate the way our insurance and medical system is set up personally. Peter, I have BPD, depressive disorder, and ADHD and struggle with emotional regulation.

[00:46:10]And I just instantly flipped screaming and crying things just got too much with family afterwards I couldn't remember.

[00:46:17]You know, Khloe, I think I appreciate you sharing this. Number one, you're not alone. Multiple other people have DM'd me with similar stories. And I think that's really important to understand what can happen to be to have the self-awareness of what you're dealing with and how you can overcome it and protect yourself and those around you um with more knowledge and information and and help from people um and to understand that horrible tragedies like this um are something that we can really learn from. Millennial Mama said, "If you're not going to cover the case in its entirety, then why are you even bothering?" This is a very easy question and I appreciate the question. Um, I think I'm going to get not 99% but 100% of the legal significance and importance of this case and every bit of it that I'm going to cover. I don't feel it necessary to talk about pictures or specific um exactly where the bodies were positioned or what was left, you know, seen in the room so we could see exactly how horrific everything was like this. I think that could be explained in she took the lives of her three kids and then we can get to the next point. Um, and we don't need to belabor all of the witnesses that the state might rightfully and legally have to call throughout the trial to prove those things. It's not necessary to dig in and recap and and spend hours on certain things in this case. Instead, we're going to focus specifically on the mental culpability. Did she have a mental disease or defect? Did she have the ability to understand the the wrongfulness or the criminality or illegality of her actions? Could she conform her actions to the law? That's what we're going to focus on. To me, that's the only thing the jury should focus on, frankly. But the jury does need to know the gory details. I don't think we need to rehash it on the recaps and discussions we have on this channel.

[00:47:57]So, that's why.

[00:48:00]Uh, Rebecca, to be honest, if she would have completed her unaliving, would this even be talked about? I absolutely think it would be talked about, but not in the insanity defense, but I think the civil cases could still be there. Um, there could be still a line a light on that.

[00:48:13]Um, it's really sad. As an ER nurse, all we are doing in this country is banging our head up against the wall when it comes to mental health. Yeah, it is. It is really sad. Incredibly sad. Nurse of interest, thank you so much for gifting 20 lawyer no memberships. Thank you guys so much. Um, let me check my notes here.

[00:48:33]I haven't been looking at them. Uh, see if I missed anything I wanted to hit on here.

[00:48:44]Yeah, I think we did.

[00:48:50]Oh, if we want to talk about McNotton real quick. Um the McNotton test is uh all defendants are presumed sane unless they can prove that at the time of committing the criminal act where the defendants state of mind caused them to not know what they were doing when they committed the said act or that they knew what they were doing but they did not know it was wrong. Common example is if a person thought they were acting uh on orders from God. So, I will just tell you [clears throat] there are really specific ways that you can argue things differently depending on what the standard is. But overall, like if we cut out all the legal and medical mumbo jumbo, it's really that someone doesn't understand what they're doing. They didn't know what they were doing was wrong, right? And you can and we've seen that. It's so sad, right? We've seen it in real life cases. We've seen it in movies and read it in books, right? when they really truly don't know what the heck they are doing and they end up committing a horrific crime and it's proven by what they do and say beforehand, during, and after the fact in my opinion. That's mostly how you can prove it. And in our cases, the very few of them that have been successful on insanity defenses, that was what happened there.

[00:49:58]uh penal code test. A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. It sounds a lot like mule mau whatever the Massachusetts one is and has used uh the terms mental disease or defect do not include abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct. So, the master's rule, I would say, sounds more like the model penal code.

[00:50:29]All right, I think that was everything I wanted to get to. Um, random question.

[00:50:34]What do you do as a juror if other jurors are clearly making decisions on their own emotions and not facts? If you think that they are not following the jury instructions, you can write a note to the court and let the court know, frankly, and I think you should, but it's hard to know. It's hard to prove.

[00:50:50]It's hard to be sure about something like that. Um, but yeah, anytime you think a juror is not following the instructions, and I've heard horror stories of jury rooms where jurors openly said, "I don't care what the rules are. I'm not going to do that."

[00:51:02]That would be something to tell the court about because the juror is not following the jury instructions. Now, of course, that can happen a lot of times back in jury rooms and we might never know about it. Um, but if you do know about it, then you should say something about it in my opinion.

[00:51:17]Um, okay. I think that's it. even a little longer than I was expecting. But I really appreciate you guys being here so much. I really appreciate the conversation. I know it's going to be hard. I know we're going to have trolls in the comments um saying, "Oh, you're avoiding this or avoiding that or oh, obviously this should be the answer when it comes to insanity defenses." But that's not what the majority of us are here for, right? And the majority of us are here are to learn from each other, understand the legal process. Why do we have the insanity defense? Is it right for cases like this? Do cases like this make you think better about the insanity defense or worse? Um, it's not like it's overly successful, which I think is also a good thing that we can talk about as a society. It's not like it's opening the floodgates for all these people to get back out on the streets. So, that's why we try to write the rules um and the definitions the way that we do. I think all of that is really important as well.

[00:52:05]Um, so, so I really want to just continue that conversation with you guys and I I value your opinions. I value your questions more than I can tell you.

[00:52:11]That's why I spend hours watching this stuff and coming online and talking to you guys about this stuff. Um, so I really appreciate it. if you're going to be, you know, following along with me as hard as it may be. Hit that like button, please, and subscribe to our channel.

[00:52:22]Hit the notification bell so you don't miss any of the videos we do on this trial. But for this one, it's all we got. Till next time, I'm out of here.

[00:52:32]Thanks for watching another episode of The Lawyer You Know. If you enjoyed the episode, please hit the thumbs up and share with your friends who may be [music] interested here on YouTube. And don't forget to subscribe. You can also follow us on Instagram, X, Facebook, [music] and Tik Tok. And don't forget to check out the Lawyer You Know podcast featuring new episodes every [music] week. And if you have a case that you want to personally talk to us about in your life, if it's a personal injury case, wrongful death, catastrophic [music] injury, car accident, truck accident, or slip and fall case, please email us at [email protected].

[00:53:02][music] And of course, all these links I just mentioned are included in the description below on this episode and every episode. So [music] until next time, this is Peter Traos, the lawyer you know.