\n<\/p>\n
This hinges on the postpartum psychosis defence – her legal team argued that Clancy hallucinated a voice after giving birth to her youngest child that told her to kill the children.<\/p>\n
Expert witnesses told the court how severe this illness can be, and family members testified about Clancy’s state of mind.<\/p>\n
Under Massachusetts law, there is no burden on Clancy to prove her mental illness and that she lacked criminal responsibility.<\/p>\n
Rather, it is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was criminally responsible when she killed her children, criminal defence lawyer Elyse Hershon told the BBC.<\/p>\n
They can do this by either proving beyond reasonable doubt that she didn’t suffer from a mental illness at the time or that, while she had a mental illness, she still controlled her actions and knew they were wrong.<\/p>\n
A not guilty verdict would mean Clancy went free but that is considered highly unlikely. Much more likely is a not guilty by reason of insanity, which would result in Clancy being detained at a hospital.<\/p>\n
“The case really comes down to where she is going to serve the rest of her life; the defence thinks it should be a psychiatric facility, the prosecution thinks it should be in a state prison,” Hershon said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n