Loading summary

Transcript66 lines

[00:01]
Michael Coyne
For moi.
[00:02]
Elise Hersan
Claude, you can talk.
[00:04]
Commercial Voice (Pretty Litter)
I've always had the gift of gab, Nancy. But now you can understand with Pretty Litter the odor neutralizing long lasting health indicating kitty litter. That's simply the most luxurious way to bury my poopies and my pee pees.
[00:19]
Elise Hersan
Pretty Litter was developed with veterinarians.
[00:21]
JC Monahan
It helps me monitor potential health problems just by changing color.
[00:25]
Commercial Voice (Pretty Litter)
Go to prettylitter.com today. Pretty litter not just a pretty Litter
[00:30]
Ryan Reynolds
hi, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Are you looking for a beach read this summer? May I suggest your big wireless bill? It's got suspense, mystery, a slightly flat emotional arc and a shocking twist where you realize you've been overpaying the entire time. Fortunately though, Mint's story is better. Every plan $15 a month. Even unlimited. That's it. Happy ending. Zero tears. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Save upfront payment
[00:53]
JC Monahan
of $45 for 3 months, $90 for 6 months or $180 for a 12 month plan required $15 per month equivalent taxes and fees. Extra initial plan term only greater than 50gb.
[00:59]
Monday.com Commercial Voice
Me slow when network is busy. See Terms this is a Monday.com ad the same Monday.com helping people worldwide getting work done faster and better. The same Monday.com designed for every team and every industry. The same Monday.com with built in AI scaling your work from day one. The same Monday.com that your team will actually love using the samemonday.com with an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free. Yes the same Monday.com.
[01:36]
Sue O'Connell
Tonight A day off in the case that hinges on one mother's mental health state.
[01:42]
JC Monahan
And that voice told her that it was her last chance she had to kill the kids.
[01:48]
Sue O'Connell
She knows that she killed these children. What was going on in that woman's mind? The Lindsay Clancy trial resumes tomorrow. Her ex husband expected back on the stand after an emotional first day of testimony.
[02:05]
Michael Coyne
Cora was into princesses and she had
[02:09]
Sue O'Connell
a lot of friends. What could come next for Patrick Clancy? Plus the case with striking parallels currently under appeal. Commonwealth Confidential the Lindsay Clancy trial starts right now
[02:24]
JC Monahan
and the Lindsay Clancy trial resumes tomorrow. Her ex husband Patrick will be back on the stand. Good evening everyone. I'm JC Monahan and I'm glad.
[02:32]
Show Host (Interviewer)
He might be the most important witness for both sides and tomorrow could be the most emotional day of testimony under direct examination. Yesterday, Clancy testified about his ex wife's struggles getting help and the right mental health meds. He was also asked about her state of mind the night his children died. Prosecutors say Lindsay killed them in a calculated act. But the defense says she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and is not criminally responsible for the murders. So far, legal experts say Clancy's testimony is benefiting the defense most.
[03:04]
Michael Coyne
He's almost really a defense witness, so he will be talking about her severe mental health state and also the efforts that they were making to reach out for help and how the system may have failed them.
[03:18]
Show Host (Interviewer)
It's unclear how long Patrick Clancy will be on the stand. The judge has scheduled a jury view for Friday. That means taking them to various locations relevant to the case.
[03:28]
JC Monahan
By all accounts, the day of the murders began like any other for the Clancy family. But prosecutors allege Lindsey Clancy methodically planned it all, even sending her husband out of the house before committing the murders.
[03:40]
Show Host (Interviewer)
So tonight, let's take a minute by minute look at the hours leading up
[03:44]
Commercial Voice (Pretty Litter)
to the disturbing discovery. Prosecutors say January 24th began with Lindsey Clancy taking her oldest child, 5 year old Cora, to the pediatrician. She returned home and played in the snow with Cora and her three year old, Dawson. She sent photos of her kids to her mother and her husband, Patrick. Prosecutors say those messages showed no obvious signs of distress. At 4:02, Clancy searched Kids Miralax on her phone. At 4:13, she also searched for Takeout 3V, a restaurant in Plymouth, and then used Apple maps to determine how long it would take to drive from her house to 3V. At 4:47, Lindsay called a local CVS and asked if they had any kids. Miralax, the manager, told her no and later told investigators her voice did not sound slurred or impaired. At 4:53, Lindsay texted Patrick, who was working at his home office in the basement and asked if he wanted to do takeout from 3V. He texted back yes. At 5:10, Lindsay called 3V and placed their order. The hostess said she noticed nothing out of the ordinary about the call. At 5:15, Patrick left the house. At 5:32, surveillance video shows Patrick at CVS in the children's medicine aisle. At 5:33, phone records show Patrick called his wife. No answer. At 5:34, Lindsay called Patrick back, telling him what medication she wanted. Patrick told prosecutors the call was completely normal. At 5:37, Patrick makes his purchase at CVS. At 5:54, surveillance video shows Patrick picking up their takeout order at 3V and leaving. At 6:09, Patrick arrives home. Prosecutors say he didn't see or hear his wife or children. He eventually finds Lindsay outside on the ground after investigators say she jumped from a second story window. Patrick then calls 911 and finds the three children in the basement with exercise bands around their necks. I've heard those details several times now.
[05:47]
Show Host (Interviewer)
It doesn't get any easier. Let's welcome in our panel now. Joining us tonight is NBC10 chief legal analyst Michael Coyne and criminal defense attorney Elise Hersan. It's good to have both of you here. All right, so Patrick is expected back on the stand again tomorrow. We expect to hear more about what happened the moment he discovered those kids. Michael, as best you can, brace us for what that is going to be like. And how do lawyers in the courtroom prepare the jury to hear that information?
[06:17]
Michael Coyne
Well, the last question is, I'm not sure you can prepare anyone to hear what we're going to hear in the morning or what the jury will hear. The public will not hear it based on the judge's earlier ruling with respect to the 911 call, but you can try to get them ready for it. But I think the horror that will actually unfold from listening to Mr. Clancy's realization as to what happened and searching for his children when he simply expected to come home and have a nice dinner with the family. I'm not sure there is any getting prepared for it. Getting ready for it. And I do think, again, we should have concerns of whether the jury will receive it as favorably as I think the government expects them to receive it, because I think it's going to be alarming and disturbing, and it could affect how they see the commonwealth's presentation of the case.
[07:13]
JC Monahan
Well, if they go after a man who has lost so much in all of this, he is not on trial, I can imagine that. That they would be more sympathetic in that moment. Can you see any situation in which Kevin Reddington does not cross examine? Patrick?
[07:29]
Michael Coyne
I don't think so. It won't be a cross examination in the traditional sense. You know, cross examination doesn't need to be cross. Kevin will, I believe, take get some information, essential information, that he wants to have the jury hear from him and then sit down when he's finished. He's not going to belabor the point. He won't keep Mr. Clancy on the stand any longer than he needs to to help Lindsey Clancy support her case. But I do think there are some things that he can provide her that will be helpful to the jury.
[08:00]
Show Host (Interviewer)
Elise, you're a criminal defense attorney. What's unique about approaching this kind of witness than other witnesses you might cross examine?
[08:09]
Elise Hersan
It's a great question. So Patrick Clancy is the type of witness that's going to provide information that I think is helpful to the prosecution, but also different information that's helpful to the defense. What's interesting about the way that the prosecution is approaching this is the prosecution is actually cross examining this witness, even though they called him as their witness
[08:29]
Show Host (Interviewer)
because they are adversarial at times.
[08:31]
Elise Hersan
Yes. So something happened before the trial started, likely, that we didn't see out of the purview of the jury where they declared him likely, what's called a hostile witness. So essentially that means that they have an obvious bias to some effect. Now, perhaps it's because he's named in some of the lawsuits as the plaintiff, just like Lindsey Clancy is. Perhaps they think because he came out after this happened and said, she didn't, you know, murder the children. She's mentally ill. So perhaps that's the reason why, therefore, the prosecution is asking. When we say cross examinations, that means asking questions that tend to suggest an answer. Sometimes it's, isn't it true that. Or you know, the question and then correct at the end. And if you heard the prosecution, a lot of the questions were correct.
[09:15]
Sue O'Connell
Correct.
[09:16]
Elise Hersan
Well, did you notice that there weren't any pills taken out of this pill bottle? Do you. Do you know that you were even. She was even taking them. So I think the prosecution was doing that to try to limit the information. They didn't want him to say something that would hurt their case. But to me, it came across like they were going after. He's the biggest victim in this case here who's still alive.
[09:34]
Show Host (Interviewer)
Sure.
[09:35]
Elise Hersan
And I think it could be potentially alienating the jury here.
[09:38]
JC Monahan
Well, they tie into that. If you bother reading the comments online, but if you read some of them, there are people who are making judgments that perhaps Patrick could have done more to help Lindsey. Here's a clip of yesterday's testimony. When Patrick talked about his wife's thoughts,
[09:53]
Commercial Voice (Pretty Litter)
she described thoughts of
[09:57]
Michael Coyne
hurting the kids
[09:58]
Sue O'Connell
or
[10:01]
Ryan Reynolds
them having some sort of ailment.
[10:06]
JC Monahan
So there you hear him saying, you know, yes, I knew these things about Lindsey. Again, he's not on trial and he has suffered so much loss. But I think the question we're trying to get at is, as a juror, if you can see that somebody else could have helped or had an influence over what was happening, whether it was the husband, the family, or as the defense, I think, is going to point out, the medical community, when you go in for the judges, when they go in to deliberate, how does that factor in?
[10:34]
Michael Coyne
Well, the jury is likely looking to hold someone responsible for the death of these three Children. And it. And it sounds horrible, but it's not. It is in Lindsey's interest if they look at her husband, if they look at the medical profession specifically.
[10:51]
Show Host (Interviewer)
Anywhere but her.
[10:52]
Michael Coyne
Anywhere but her. That's exactly right, Glenn.
[10:54]
Show Host (Interviewer)
Okay. Well, Elise, let me ask you as well, about something that actually, Michael Coyne said last night. He did openly question the decision to put Patrick Clancy on first as the prosecution's witness. We are where we are now. Where should the prosecution go next to make its most positive step in terms of this huge list of potential witnesses?
[11:16]
Elise Hersan
The answer is anywhere but here. They. They started off not in. This is not working in their favor. So not. They had to call him. Right. Because he sets the stage for. He's the one that knew Lindsey Clancy the best. He's the one that saw her last before this happened. The last one to see the children alive and the first one on the scene to find them deceased and to find his then wife paralyzed and extremely injured on the ground in the backyard ever after having jumped out the window. I just think that the way that they're approaching this is a little bit too bold. They're going after someone who is so sympathetic to ask somebody in hindsight, or at least to imply this. Right. What could he have done to prevent this? That's such a terrible question. He's already had his life ripped away from him. And I think they're losing points here. I think. And I know this is one of your first questions, but Reddington could get up and say, I have no questions. That would be a very bold statement. And to say, I'm really sorry for your loss. I'm sorry you have to be here and to sit down. I think there is information that he needs to get from this witness. I anticipate he will ask questions, but essentially the Commonwealth is saying that she made this whole thing up. She made up the mental illness. She made up this. This is a fake, attempted suicide. And they're just really overreaching here. They don't have to do that for lack of criminal responsibility. They have to disprove. They could disprove one of both. They have to disprove two things.
[12:44]
JC Monahan
Right?
[12:45]
Elise Hersan
She didn't have a mental illness at all, or she had it, but it wasn't enough to overcome the intent, like, she could still be responsible.
[12:52]
JC Monahan
There is so much trial ahead. I mean, this is after one day. Thank you so much for joining us. Go anywhere. We're talking about a very similar case after the break.
[13:00]
Show Host (Interviewer)
We're talking same crime, same courthouse, even the same judge. But there's a key difference, so stay tuned. But before we go to break, we want to remember Cora Dawson and Callan Clancy, the young victims in this case. Stay with us. Commonwealth Confidential. We'll be right back.
[13:17]
Monday.com Commercial Voice
This is a Monday.com ad, the same Monday.com helping people worldwide getting work done faster and better. The same Monday.com designed for every team and every industry. The same Monday.com with built in AI scaling your work from day one. The same Monday.com that your team will actually love using the samemonday.com with an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free. Yes, the same Monday.com
[13:50]
Show Host (Interviewer)
as we continue our coverage of the Lindsay Clancy case, we want to introduce you to Latasha Sanders, a brockton woman serving two mandatory life sentences for killing her sons, Marlon, age 8, and Lasan, age 5. The Sanders case is relevant because the similarities with the Clancy case are striking. Both defendants were charged in Plymouth county by the same district attorney with the same crime, first degree murder, and similar mental health defenses. Even the same judge, William Sullivan, on the bench for both trials.
[14:19]
JC Monahan
Okay. Now we're starting to see how differently these cases are playing out. The media coverage and public support have been much higher in the Clancy case. Talking demographics, Sanders is black from Brockton. Clancy is white, lived in Duxbury. The judge allowed Clancy's mental health records as evidence, but not for Sanders. Right now Sanders is appealing that decision, asking for a retrial because her lawyer says there is evidence she was mentally
[14:43]
Show Host (Interviewer)
ill, that she suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, and that she was highly likely symptomatic at the time that this occurred. So it's simply wrong that the jury never heard the evidence.
[14:59]
JC Monahan
So we are back now with chief legal analyst Michael Cohen and Joining the conversation, NBC10 courtroom insider Sue O'. Connell. The eerie thing about this is Sanders was found guilty one month before the Clancy incident happened. And just another overlapping moment there. But why, Michael, in a legal view, why were they allowed to keep her medical records out? Sanders and Clancy, they are in fully.
[15:27]
Michael Coyne
It's a question of relevance. And the court in the Clancy case sees that the pre existing history of treatment for postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis, the attempts to get further medical treatment and medicines to treat that, all of that predates the murders. And so therefore it's more likely relevant. I think in the Sanders case, at least in part, the court was looking at it as there's nothing that supports in those medical records that she was suffering from it before or even at the time You've got some testimony that subsequent to it, it was likely she was suffering from it. And I think it's splitting up very close here. Supreme Court may see it very differently than the trial judge because you would hope that the jury would get the full history here. But that's part of the question that trial judges have to deal with. Is, is the evidence relevant and does this evidence support your defense?
[16:24]
Show Host (Interviewer)
Let's talk to sue about the decision making power of the district attorney. So the Plymouth County DA is Timothy Cruz. He was called out yesterday in court for bringing the first degree murder charge against Clancy. Her defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, even pointed him out to the jury during opening statements. Let's pull up that moment.
[16:40]
Sue O'Connell
They brought this charge. Tim Cruz, the DA right in the front row, brought this charge. He knew, as did his office, the facts of this case, and he knew when he brought this charge that it was going to kill the soul of this young woman.
[16:57]
Show Host (Interviewer)
So, sue, take us in the courtroom for the drama of that moment. And also, what about the decision making political power of a DA both in the Sanders and the Clancy case, to go with murder one?
[17:08]
Sue O'Connell
Yeah, I'll work backwards, of course. You know, I think most people don't understand how much power the district attorney has in your life. You know, a judge, a beat cop, and district attorney probably have the most power over you if there's some criminal activity that you get accused of. When he did that, it was shocking. It was sort of very early in his opening statement. His opening statements. And. And it was shocking a little bit. We also had come from a very nuts and bolts sort of presentation by the Commonwealth. You know, I mean, the issue here, too, is mass. Most people don't know that they vote for district attorney. You go into the ballot box and you look. And usually we have incumbents and we vote them all over again. The ACLU a few years ago did a great program called what a Difference a DA Makes. And they actually were educating people about the candidates and why you need to care about who your district attorney is. So, you know, the charging choice, from a political standpoint, I don't think he had a lot of room to not charge Lindsey Clancy with the same as he did to Ms. Sanders. Because, you know, clearly it would have been an issue of bias, of race, of economic status, all of that. So, you know, this is an opportunity for us to back up and say, okay, are these charges appropriate at any moment? How much thought goes into making these? Not just can you win it? And it's hard. I mean, every victim is innocent in some way, but children are always innocent. And when children have been murdered, it makes the stakes that much higher. And I think when we look at the Karen Reid case with the police officer, it was John o' Keeffe was a police officer. Those charges always take more public pressure to charge the person who's accused to the highest degree because they're going to run for office and they don't want to be saying you let a cop killer off, you let a baby killer off.
[18:51]
JC Monahan
Well, okay, and this is going to sound naive, but shouldn't he be charging based on the facts, not his political career? In other words, you know, treating each case separately because again, you make a valid point that if he didn't and he was softer and did second degree murder with Lindsey Clancy, it would seem like he's treating a white woman and a black woman differently. However you want to frame it, people can spin it however they want because
[19:15]
Show Host (Interviewer)
justice should be the priority.
[19:16]
JC Monahan
That's what I mean.
[19:17]
Michael Coyne
But the evidence there is evidence that supports a first degree murder charge. You have to remember the district attorney is the chief law enforcement officer for the county. So his job is to try and ensure that the highest possible crime that could fit the facts is charged and then let the jury sort it out. I know the office. I know a lot of folks that work in that office. He runs a good office. And the people I respect and admire the folks that work there, I don't think he had much of a choice in view of the facts of the case as well as the prior history than we look at Sanders, because there is a great disparity if Lindsey Clancy gets a second degree or even something manslaughter. When we have a woman from a poor woman from Brockton in jail for the rest of her life without the
[20:02]
JC Monahan
benefit of parole, totally out of time. But he was in the courtroom for opening. Is that normal to have a DA Sitting front row?
[20:09]
Michael Coyne
Not necessarily, but maybe he wanted to be educated about it. Maybe they'll sit down and really now that they have a better understanding of the facts, be able to do something.
[20:17]
JC Monahan
Michael and sue, as always, thank you so much for joining us tonight. And before we go, a reminder. If you are pregnant or a new mother and you are in crisis, the National Maternal Mental Health Hotline provides free confidential support 247 in English and Spanish. You can call or text the hotline 1-833-852-6262.
[20:38]
Show Host (Interviewer)
And if you or someone you know is in crisis, call 988 to reach the suicide and Crisis Lifeline. You can Also check out 988lifeline.org.

Summary6 min read

The Lindsay Clancy Trial: Commonwealth Confidential

Episode: Upsetting day in Lindsay Clancy trial ahead | What to know
Date: July 28, 2026
Host: NBC10 Boston (JC Monahan, Sue O’Connell)
Panelists: Michael Coyne (Chief Legal Analyst), Elise Hersan (Criminal Defense Attorney)

Episode Overview

This episode covers a pivotal development in the Lindsay Clancy trial, focusing on the highly anticipated return of her ex-husband, Patrick Clancy, to the witness stand. The panel breaks down the prior day’s emotional testimony, the trial's reliance on mental health arguments, and the larger legal and societal complexities at play. The show also draws striking parallels to the Latasha Sanders case, discussing issues of race, media attention, prosecutorial decisions, and the relevance of mental health records in high-profile child-murder cases.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Patrick Clancy’s Testimony – Emotional Impact and Legal Significance

Patrick Clancy’s role: Seen as a critical witness by both prosecution and defense, providing detailed testimony about Lindsay Clancy’s mental state and the family’s attempts to seek help ([02:32]).
Benefit to Defense: Legal experts suggest Patrick’s testimony thus far supports the defense’s argument that Lindsay was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis and not criminally responsible ([03:03], Michael Coyne).
Anticipation for Next Testimony: The panel braces for further emotional revelations as Patrick discusses discovering his children and Lindsay ([05:46], [06:16]).

"He's almost really a defense witness, so he will be talking about her severe mental health state and also the efforts that they were making to reach out for help and how the system may have failed them."
— Michael Coyne [03:03]

"I'm not sure you can prepare anyone to hear what we're going to hear in the morning or what the jury will hear."
— Michael Coyne [06:16]

2. Minute-by-Minute Timeline of Events on the Day of the Murders

A detailed chronology is recounted (timestamps embedded in narrative, roughly [03:40] - [05:46]), depicting what prosecutors allege was a methodically planned day. Notably:

No signs of distress in text messages/photos with family.
Lindsay researched children's medications (Kids Miralax), takeout food, and mapped the restaurant route.
Multiple normal interactions: Calls to CVS, takeout order, routine exchanges with Patrick.
Patrick leaves to run errands at 5:15 PM, returns at 6:09 PM to discover the tragedy.

3. Complex Legal Strategies: Witness Handling and Cross-Examination

Patrick as a Hostile Prosecution Witness: Despite being called by the state, Patrick is cross-examined as a potentially sympathetic witness for the defense ([08:08]).
Prosecution seeks to limit his testimony with “correct?”-style questions, highlighting their adversarial stance ([09:14], Elise Hersan).
Defense expected to tread carefully, perhaps asking few (if any) questions, focusing instead on sympathy:

"He's the biggest victim in this case here who's still alive. And I think it could be potentially alienating the jury here."
— Elise Hersan [09:15]

"Reddington could get up and say, I have no questions. That would be a very bold statement."
— Elise Hersan [11:16]

4. Central Legal Issue: Mental Health and Criminal Responsibility

Defense aims to establish Lindsay’s severe mental illness (postpartum psychosis), arguing she lacked criminal responsibility (the “lack of criminal responsibility” standard).
The prosecution must disprove either the existence of mental illness or that it negated her intent ([12:44]).

"They have to disprove two things. She didn't have a mental illness at all, or she had it, but it wasn't enough to overcome the intent."
— Elise Hersan [12:44]

5. Public Perception, Media Bias, and Comparative Cases

Parallel Case: Latasha Sanders ([13:50] onward)

Sanders, a Black woman, was convicted and sentenced to life for a similar crime, under the same judge and prosecutor as Clancy.
Judges allowed Clancy's mental health records as evidence, but not Sanders’s; Sanders’s legal team is appealing, arguing evidence of paranoid schizophrenia was unjustly withheld ([14:19] - [14:43]).
Discussion on disparate media coverage, demographic factors, and fairness in judicial procedure ([14:19], JC Monahan).

"The judge allowed Clancy's mental health records as evidence, but not for Sanders. Right now Sanders is appealing that decision..."
— JC Monahan [14:19]
Legal reasoning for evidence inclusion is debated:

"The court in the Clancy case sees that the pre existing history of treatment for postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis... predates the murders. And so therefore it's more likely relevant."
— Michael Coyne [15:27]

6. Prosecution as a Political Office

Plymouth County DA Tim Cruz's charging decisions are dissected, both as legal moves and political calculations.
Defense (Kevin Reddington) highlighted Cruz’s direct responsibility to the jury, framing the murder charge as soul-crushing and heavily weighted ([16:39] - [16:56]).
Panel discusses the immense power of the DA—and the expectation to charge equally across racial and socioeconomic lines, especially in high-profile, emotionally charged cases ([17:07] Sue O’Connell, [19:17] Michael Coyne).

"You know, I think most people don't understand how much power the district attorney has in your life... The charging choice, from a political standpoint, I don't think he had a lot of room to not charge Lindsey Clancy with the same as he did to Ms. Sanders."
— Sue O’Connell [17:07]

"The district attorney is the chief law enforcement officer for the county. His job is to try and ensure that the highest possible crime that could fit the facts is charged and then let the jury sort it out."
— Michael Coyne [19:17]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On the impact of Patrick Clancy as a witness:

"He's almost really a defense witness." — Michael Coyne [03:03]

"He's the biggest victim in this case here who's still alive." — Elise Hersan [09:15]
On the prosecution’s risky approach:

"They're going after someone who is so sympathetic to ask somebody in hindsight, or at least to imply this ... That's such a terrible question." — Elise Hersan [11:16]
On the racial and procedural disparities between Clancy and Sanders:

"The judge allowed Clancy's mental health records as evidence, but not for Sanders. Right now Sanders is appealing that decision..." — JC Monahan [14:19]
On the political aspect of DA’s charging decisions:

"The charging choice, from a political standpoint, I don’t think he had a lot of room to not charge Lindsey Clancy with the same as he did to Ms. Sanders." — Sue O’Connell [17:07] "You have to remember the district attorney is the chief law enforcement officer for the county. So his job is to try and ensure that the highest possible crime that could fit the facts is charged and then let the jury sort it out." — Michael Coyne [19:17]

Important Segment Timestamps

[01:36] Episode opens: Emotional day ahead, focus on mental health.
[02:32] Patrick Clancy’s testimony recap and significance.
[03:40 – 05:46] Minute-by-minute breakdown of the day of the crime.
[06:16 – 09:37] Panel discusses the emotional challenge for jurors/hearing Patrick's testimony; complexities of cross-examining Patrick.
[13:50 – 16:23] Close analysis of the Latasha Sanders case and courtroom disparities.
[16:39 – 20:16] Panel unpacks the politics of DA charging decisions and their dramatic presentation in court.

Tone and Atmosphere

The discussion is somber, respectful, and analytical, reflecting the gravity of the case and the loss involved. Panelists maintain a sensitive approach, mindful of the suffering of surviving family and the ethical dimensions of legal strategy and public reaction.

Conclusion

In this episode, the panel unpacks a day marked by gut-wrenching testimony and legal complexity in the Lindsay Clancy trial, while reflecting on issues of mental health, race, media bias, and prosecutorial power in Massachusetts justice. Listeners are left with a nuanced portrait of how the legal system—and its personalities—shape outcomes in the most tragic of circumstances.

If you or someone you know is in crisis:

Maternal Mental Health Hotline: 1-833-852-6262 (free, confidential, English and Spanish)
Suicide and Crisis Lifeline: Call 988 or visit 988lifeline.org

Loading summary

Transcript66 lines

[00:01]
Michael Coyne
For moi.
[00:02]
Elise Hersan
Claude, you can talk.
[00:04]
Commercial Voice (Pretty Litter)
I've always had the gift of gab, Nancy. But now you can understand with Pretty Litter the odor neutralizing long lasting health indicating kitty litter. That's simply the most luxurious way to bury my poopies and my pee pees.
[00:19]
Elise Hersan
Pretty Litter was developed with veterinarians.
[00:21]
JC Monahan
It helps me monitor potential health problems just by changing color.
[00:25]
Commercial Voice (Pretty Litter)
Go to prettylitter.com today. Pretty litter not just a pretty Litter
[00:30]
Ryan Reynolds
hi, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Are you looking for a beach read this summer? May I suggest your big wireless bill? It's got suspense, mystery, a slightly flat emotional arc and a shocking twist where you realize you've been overpaying the entire time. Fortunately though, Mint's story is better. Every plan $15 a month. Even unlimited. That's it. Happy ending. Zero tears. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Save upfront payment
[00:53]
JC Monahan
of $45 for 3 months, $90 for 6 months or $180 for a 12 month plan required $15 per month equivalent taxes and fees. Extra initial plan term only greater than 50gb.
[00:59]
Monday.com Commercial Voice
Me slow when network is busy. See Terms this is a Monday.com ad the same Monday.com helping people worldwide getting work done faster and better. The same Monday.com designed for every team and every industry. The same Monday.com with built in AI scaling your work from day one. The same Monday.com that your team will actually love using the samemonday.com with an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free. Yes the same Monday.com.
[01:36]
Sue O'Connell
Tonight A day off in the case that hinges on one mother's mental health state.
[01:42]
JC Monahan
And that voice told her that it was her last chance she had to kill the kids.
[01:48]
Sue O'Connell
She knows that she killed these children. What was going on in that woman's mind? The Lindsay Clancy trial resumes tomorrow. Her ex husband expected back on the stand after an emotional first day of testimony.
[02:05]
Michael Coyne
Cora was into princesses and she had
[02:09]
Sue O'Connell
a lot of friends. What could come next for Patrick Clancy? Plus the case with striking parallels currently under appeal. Commonwealth Confidential the Lindsay Clancy trial starts right now
[02:24]
JC Monahan
and the Lindsay Clancy trial resumes tomorrow. Her ex husband Patrick will be back on the stand. Good evening everyone. I'm JC Monahan and I'm glad.
[02:32]
Show Host (Interviewer)
He might be the most important witness for both sides and tomorrow could be the most emotional day of testimony under direct examination. Yesterday, Clancy testified about his ex wife's struggles getting help and the right mental health meds. He was also asked about her state of mind the night his children died. Prosecutors say Lindsay killed them in a calculated act. But the defense says she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and is not criminally responsible for the murders. So far, legal experts say Clancy's testimony is benefiting the defense most.
[03:04]
Michael Coyne
He's almost really a defense witness, so he will be talking about her severe mental health state and also the efforts that they were making to reach out for help and how the system may have failed them.
[03:18]
Show Host (Interviewer)
It's unclear how long Patrick Clancy will be on the stand. The judge has scheduled a jury view for Friday. That means taking them to various locations relevant to the case.
[03:28]
JC Monahan
By all accounts, the day of the murders began like any other for the Clancy family. But prosecutors allege Lindsey Clancy methodically planned it all, even sending her husband out of the house before committing the murders.
[03:40]
Show Host (Interviewer)
So tonight, let's take a minute by minute look at the hours leading up
[03:44]
Commercial Voice (Pretty Litter)
to the disturbing discovery. Prosecutors say January 24th began with Lindsey Clancy taking her oldest child, 5 year old Cora, to the pediatrician. She returned home and played in the snow with Cora and her three year old, Dawson. She sent photos of her kids to her mother and her husband, Patrick. Prosecutors say those messages showed no obvious signs of distress. At 4:02, Clancy searched Kids Miralax on her phone. At 4:13, she also searched for Takeout 3V, a restaurant in Plymouth, and then used Apple maps to determine how long it would take to drive from her house to 3V. At 4:47, Lindsay called a local CVS and asked if they had any kids. Miralax, the manager, told her no and later told investigators her voice did not sound slurred or impaired. At 4:53, Lindsay texted Patrick, who was working at his home office in the basement and asked if he wanted to do takeout from 3V. He texted back yes. At 5:10, Lindsay called 3V and placed their order. The hostess said she noticed nothing out of the ordinary about the call. At 5:15, Patrick left the house. At 5:32, surveillance video shows Patrick at CVS in the children's medicine aisle. At 5:33, phone records show Patrick called his wife. No answer. At 5:34, Lindsay called Patrick back, telling him what medication she wanted. Patrick told prosecutors the call was completely normal. At 5:37, Patrick makes his purchase at CVS. At 5:54, surveillance video shows Patrick picking up their takeout order at 3V and leaving. At 6:09, Patrick arrives home. Prosecutors say he didn't see or hear his wife or children. He eventually finds Lindsay outside on the ground after investigators say she jumped from a second story window. Patrick then calls 911 and finds the three children in the basement with exercise bands around their necks. I've heard those details several times now.
[05:47]
Show Host (Interviewer)
It doesn't get any easier. Let's welcome in our panel now. Joining us tonight is NBC10 chief legal analyst Michael Coyne and criminal defense attorney Elise Hersan. It's good to have both of you here. All right, so Patrick is expected back on the stand again tomorrow. We expect to hear more about what happened the moment he discovered those kids. Michael, as best you can, brace us for what that is going to be like. And how do lawyers in the courtroom prepare the jury to hear that information?
[06:17]
Michael Coyne
Well, the last question is, I'm not sure you can prepare anyone to hear what we're going to hear in the morning or what the jury will hear. The public will not hear it based on the judge's earlier ruling with respect to the 911 call, but you can try to get them ready for it. But I think the horror that will actually unfold from listening to Mr. Clancy's realization as to what happened and searching for his children when he simply expected to come home and have a nice dinner with the family. I'm not sure there is any getting prepared for it. Getting ready for it. And I do think, again, we should have concerns of whether the jury will receive it as favorably as I think the government expects them to receive it, because I think it's going to be alarming and disturbing, and it could affect how they see the commonwealth's presentation of the case.
[07:13]
JC Monahan
Well, if they go after a man who has lost so much in all of this, he is not on trial, I can imagine that. That they would be more sympathetic in that moment. Can you see any situation in which Kevin Reddington does not cross examine? Patrick?
[07:29]
Michael Coyne
I don't think so. It won't be a cross examination in the traditional sense. You know, cross examination doesn't need to be cross. Kevin will, I believe, take get some information, essential information, that he wants to have the jury hear from him and then sit down when he's finished. He's not going to belabor the point. He won't keep Mr. Clancy on the stand any longer than he needs to to help Lindsey Clancy support her case. But I do think there are some things that he can provide her that will be helpful to the jury.
[08:00]
Show Host (Interviewer)
Elise, you're a criminal defense attorney. What's unique about approaching this kind of witness than other witnesses you might cross examine?
[08:09]
Elise Hersan
It's a great question. So Patrick Clancy is the type of witness that's going to provide information that I think is helpful to the prosecution, but also different information that's helpful to the defense. What's interesting about the way that the prosecution is approaching this is the prosecution is actually cross examining this witness, even though they called him as their witness
[08:29]
Show Host (Interviewer)
because they are adversarial at times.
[08:31]
Elise Hersan
Yes. So something happened before the trial started, likely, that we didn't see out of the purview of the jury where they declared him likely, what's called a hostile witness. So essentially that means that they have an obvious bias to some effect. Now, perhaps it's because he's named in some of the lawsuits as the plaintiff, just like Lindsey Clancy is. Perhaps they think because he came out after this happened and said, she didn't, you know, murder the children. She's mentally ill. So perhaps that's the reason why, therefore, the prosecution is asking. When we say cross examinations, that means asking questions that tend to suggest an answer. Sometimes it's, isn't it true that. Or you know, the question and then correct at the end. And if you heard the prosecution, a lot of the questions were correct.
[09:15]
Sue O'Connell
Correct.
[09:16]
Elise Hersan
Well, did you notice that there weren't any pills taken out of this pill bottle? Do you. Do you know that you were even. She was even taking them. So I think the prosecution was doing that to try to limit the information. They didn't want him to say something that would hurt their case. But to me, it came across like they were going after. He's the biggest victim in this case here who's still alive.
[09:34]
Show Host (Interviewer)
Sure.
[09:35]
Elise Hersan
And I think it could be potentially alienating the jury here.
[09:38]
JC Monahan
Well, they tie into that. If you bother reading the comments online, but if you read some of them, there are people who are making judgments that perhaps Patrick could have done more to help Lindsey. Here's a clip of yesterday's testimony. When Patrick talked about his wife's thoughts,
[09:53]
Commercial Voice (Pretty Litter)
she described thoughts of
[09:57]
Michael Coyne
hurting the kids
[09:58]
Sue O'Connell
or
[10:01]
Ryan Reynolds
them having some sort of ailment.
[10:06]
JC Monahan
So there you hear him saying, you know, yes, I knew these things about Lindsey. Again, he's not on trial and he has suffered so much loss. But I think the question we're trying to get at is, as a juror, if you can see that somebody else could have helped or had an influence over what was happening, whether it was the husband, the family, or as the defense, I think, is going to point out, the medical community, when you go in for the judges, when they go in to deliberate, how does that factor in?
[10:34]
Michael Coyne
Well, the jury is likely looking to hold someone responsible for the death of these three Children. And it. And it sounds horrible, but it's not. It is in Lindsey's interest if they look at her husband, if they look at the medical profession specifically.
[10:51]
Show Host (Interviewer)
Anywhere but her.
[10:52]
Michael Coyne
Anywhere but her. That's exactly right, Glenn.
[10:54]
Show Host (Interviewer)
Okay. Well, Elise, let me ask you as well, about something that actually, Michael Coyne said last night. He did openly question the decision to put Patrick Clancy on first as the prosecution's witness. We are where we are now. Where should the prosecution go next to make its most positive step in terms of this huge list of potential witnesses?
[11:16]
Elise Hersan
The answer is anywhere but here. They. They started off not in. This is not working in their favor. So not. They had to call him. Right. Because he sets the stage for. He's the one that knew Lindsey Clancy the best. He's the one that saw her last before this happened. The last one to see the children alive and the first one on the scene to find them deceased and to find his then wife paralyzed and extremely injured on the ground in the backyard ever after having jumped out the window. I just think that the way that they're approaching this is a little bit too bold. They're going after someone who is so sympathetic to ask somebody in hindsight, or at least to imply this. Right. What could he have done to prevent this? That's such a terrible question. He's already had his life ripped away from him. And I think they're losing points here. I think. And I know this is one of your first questions, but Reddington could get up and say, I have no questions. That would be a very bold statement. And to say, I'm really sorry for your loss. I'm sorry you have to be here and to sit down. I think there is information that he needs to get from this witness. I anticipate he will ask questions, but essentially the Commonwealth is saying that she made this whole thing up. She made up the mental illness. She made up this. This is a fake, attempted suicide. And they're just really overreaching here. They don't have to do that for lack of criminal responsibility. They have to disprove. They could disprove one of both. They have to disprove two things.
[12:44]
JC Monahan
Right?
[12:45]
Elise Hersan
She didn't have a mental illness at all, or she had it, but it wasn't enough to overcome the intent, like, she could still be responsible.
[12:52]
JC Monahan
There is so much trial ahead. I mean, this is after one day. Thank you so much for joining us. Go anywhere. We're talking about a very similar case after the break.
[13:00]
Show Host (Interviewer)
We're talking same crime, same courthouse, even the same judge. But there's a key difference, so stay tuned. But before we go to break, we want to remember Cora Dawson and Callan Clancy, the young victims in this case. Stay with us. Commonwealth Confidential. We'll be right back.
[13:17]
Monday.com Commercial Voice
This is a Monday.com ad, the same Monday.com helping people worldwide getting work done faster and better. The same Monday.com designed for every team and every industry. The same Monday.com with built in AI scaling your work from day one. The same Monday.com that your team will actually love using the samemonday.com with an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free. Yes, the same Monday.com
[13:50]
Show Host (Interviewer)
as we continue our coverage of the Lindsay Clancy case, we want to introduce you to Latasha Sanders, a brockton woman serving two mandatory life sentences for killing her sons, Marlon, age 8, and Lasan, age 5. The Sanders case is relevant because the similarities with the Clancy case are striking. Both defendants were charged in Plymouth county by the same district attorney with the same crime, first degree murder, and similar mental health defenses. Even the same judge, William Sullivan, on the bench for both trials.
[14:19]
JC Monahan
Okay. Now we're starting to see how differently these cases are playing out. The media coverage and public support have been much higher in the Clancy case. Talking demographics, Sanders is black from Brockton. Clancy is white, lived in Duxbury. The judge allowed Clancy's mental health records as evidence, but not for Sanders. Right now Sanders is appealing that decision, asking for a retrial because her lawyer says there is evidence she was mentally
[14:43]
Show Host (Interviewer)
ill, that she suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, and that she was highly likely symptomatic at the time that this occurred. So it's simply wrong that the jury never heard the evidence.
[14:59]
JC Monahan
So we are back now with chief legal analyst Michael Cohen and Joining the conversation, NBC10 courtroom insider Sue O'. Connell. The eerie thing about this is Sanders was found guilty one month before the Clancy incident happened. And just another overlapping moment there. But why, Michael, in a legal view, why were they allowed to keep her medical records out? Sanders and Clancy, they are in fully.
[15:27]
Michael Coyne
It's a question of relevance. And the court in the Clancy case sees that the pre existing history of treatment for postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis, the attempts to get further medical treatment and medicines to treat that, all of that predates the murders. And so therefore it's more likely relevant. I think in the Sanders case, at least in part, the court was looking at it as there's nothing that supports in those medical records that she was suffering from it before or even at the time You've got some testimony that subsequent to it, it was likely she was suffering from it. And I think it's splitting up very close here. Supreme Court may see it very differently than the trial judge because you would hope that the jury would get the full history here. But that's part of the question that trial judges have to deal with. Is, is the evidence relevant and does this evidence support your defense?
[16:24]
Show Host (Interviewer)
Let's talk to sue about the decision making power of the district attorney. So the Plymouth County DA is Timothy Cruz. He was called out yesterday in court for bringing the first degree murder charge against Clancy. Her defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, even pointed him out to the jury during opening statements. Let's pull up that moment.
[16:40]
Sue O'Connell
They brought this charge. Tim Cruz, the DA right in the front row, brought this charge. He knew, as did his office, the facts of this case, and he knew when he brought this charge that it was going to kill the soul of this young woman.
[16:57]
Show Host (Interviewer)
So, sue, take us in the courtroom for the drama of that moment. And also, what about the decision making political power of a DA both in the Sanders and the Clancy case, to go with murder one?
[17:08]
Sue O'Connell
Yeah, I'll work backwards, of course. You know, I think most people don't understand how much power the district attorney has in your life. You know, a judge, a beat cop, and district attorney probably have the most power over you if there's some criminal activity that you get accused of. When he did that, it was shocking. It was sort of very early in his opening statement. His opening statements. And. And it was shocking a little bit. We also had come from a very nuts and bolts sort of presentation by the Commonwealth. You know, I mean, the issue here, too, is mass. Most people don't know that they vote for district attorney. You go into the ballot box and you look. And usually we have incumbents and we vote them all over again. The ACLU a few years ago did a great program called what a Difference a DA Makes. And they actually were educating people about the candidates and why you need to care about who your district attorney is. So, you know, the charging choice, from a political standpoint, I don't think he had a lot of room to not charge Lindsey Clancy with the same as he did to Ms. Sanders. Because, you know, clearly it would have been an issue of bias, of race, of economic status, all of that. So, you know, this is an opportunity for us to back up and say, okay, are these charges appropriate at any moment? How much thought goes into making these? Not just can you win it? And it's hard. I mean, every victim is innocent in some way, but children are always innocent. And when children have been murdered, it makes the stakes that much higher. And I think when we look at the Karen Reid case with the police officer, it was John o' Keeffe was a police officer. Those charges always take more public pressure to charge the person who's accused to the highest degree because they're going to run for office and they don't want to be saying you let a cop killer off, you let a baby killer off.
[18:51]
JC Monahan
Well, okay, and this is going to sound naive, but shouldn't he be charging based on the facts, not his political career? In other words, you know, treating each case separately because again, you make a valid point that if he didn't and he was softer and did second degree murder with Lindsey Clancy, it would seem like he's treating a white woman and a black woman differently. However you want to frame it, people can spin it however they want because
[19:15]
Show Host (Interviewer)
justice should be the priority.
[19:16]
JC Monahan
That's what I mean.
[19:17]
Michael Coyne
But the evidence there is evidence that supports a first degree murder charge. You have to remember the district attorney is the chief law enforcement officer for the county. So his job is to try and ensure that the highest possible crime that could fit the facts is charged and then let the jury sort it out. I know the office. I know a lot of folks that work in that office. He runs a good office. And the people I respect and admire the folks that work there, I don't think he had much of a choice in view of the facts of the case as well as the prior history than we look at Sanders, because there is a great disparity if Lindsey Clancy gets a second degree or even something manslaughter. When we have a woman from a poor woman from Brockton in jail for the rest of her life without the
[20:02]
JC Monahan
benefit of parole, totally out of time. But he was in the courtroom for opening. Is that normal to have a DA Sitting front row?
[20:09]
Michael Coyne
Not necessarily, but maybe he wanted to be educated about it. Maybe they'll sit down and really now that they have a better understanding of the facts, be able to do something.
[20:17]
JC Monahan
Michael and sue, as always, thank you so much for joining us tonight. And before we go, a reminder. If you are pregnant or a new mother and you are in crisis, the National Maternal Mental Health Hotline provides free confidential support 247 in English and Spanish. You can call or text the hotline 1-833-852-6262.
[20:38]
Show Host (Interviewer)
And if you or someone you know is in crisis, call 988 to reach the suicide and Crisis Lifeline. You can Also check out 988lifeline.org.