Skip to content
Lindsay Clancy— Case Archive
2026 Criminal Trialtrial-daytrial-dayJennifer SpragueKevin Reddingtonjury_instructionsclosing_argumentDay 22 - August 27, 2026The defense sought a lack-of-criminal-responsibility verdict, while the Commonwealth argued for first-degree murder findings. Judge Sullivan delivered instructions before and after the closings, and six alternates were selected before the planned start of deliberations.
← Day 212026 Criminal TrialDay 23 →

Day 22 - August 27, 2026

Closing Arguments and Final Jury Instructions

Judge William Sullivan
5Proceedings
4Pages
0Witnesses
174Lines
Day 22 of 28
Appearing:
Jennifer Sprague Kevin Reddington

The defense sought a lack-of-criminal-responsibility verdict, while the Commonwealth argued for first-degree murder findings. Judge Sullivan delivered instructions before and after the closings, and six alternates were selected before the planned start of deliberations.

Full day summary

Judge William Sullivan instructed jurors on criminal responsibility and the three murder indictments before closing arguments. He placed the burden of proving criminal responsibility on the Commonwealth and explained deliberate premeditation, extreme atrocity or cruelty, second-degree murder, and wanton or reckless manslaughter. He also addressed how mental impairment and prescription-drug evidence could affect the required findings and described conditional commitment procedures following a lack-of-criminal-responsibility verdict. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington asked for a finding of not guilty based on lack of criminal responsibility. He attributed Clancy's condition to medication and inadequate treatment, cited her injuries, journals, treatment records, and defense evaluations, and disputed the Commonwealth's interpretations of the physical evidence, reported voices, and timeline. Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague conceded mental illness and a genuine suicide attempt but argued that Clancy remained criminally responsible. She challenged the defense's medication and treatment account and argued that errands, calls, stair activity, and physical evidence showed planning. She sought first-degree murder findings under both theories Sullivan had explained. After the closings, Sullivan clarified the use of mental-impairment and prescription-drug evidence for second-degree murder and gave the remaining general instructions. He limited statements made during psychiatric or psychological evaluations to their use as a basis for opinions about Clancy's mental condition, not proof of their contents or specified murder elements. Six alternates were selected, leaving twelve deliberating jurors. Sullivan explained the verdict slips and requested a sidebar before the planned officer oath and deliberations.

Video thumbnail3:04:59
Watch →

1. Jury Instructions on Criminal Responsibility, Murder, and Manslaughter

Judge Sullivan instructed jurors on criminal responsibility, murder, and manslaughter before closing arguments.

→
Jury Instruction
Jury Instructions on Criminal Responsibility, Murder, and Manslaughter
34 lines

Sullivan instructed jurors on criminal responsibility, murder, and manslaughter, including the Commonwealth's burden and consideration of mental impairment and prescription drugs.

Highlights

Jury Instructions on Criminal Responsibility, Murder, and Manslaughterjury eventSullivan places the burden of proving criminal responsibility on the Commonwealth, defines the substantial-capacity standard, and explains conditional commitment procedures following a verdict of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.Jury Instructions on Criminal Responsibility, Murder, and Manslaughterjury eventSullivan instructs on the separate murder indictments and both first-degree theories: deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty. He addresses unanimity and the permissible consideration of mental impairment and prescription-drug evidence.

2. Closing Argument — Defense

Kevin Reddington urged acquittal based on lack of criminal responsibility, citing medication, inadequate treatment, and defense expert opinions while challenging the Commonwealth’s evidence and psychiatric evaluations.

→
Closing
Closing Argument - Defense Kevin Reddington
40 lines

Reddington argued that medication, treatment failures, and psychosis left Lindsay without criminal responsibility. He challenged the investigation and prosecution experts, disputed interpretations of physical and digital evidence, and emphasized the Commonwealth's burden of proof.

Highlights

Closing Argument - DefenseotherReddington attributed Lindsay's condition to medication and inadequate care, then framed criminal responsibility as an issue the Commonwealth had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

3. Closing Argument — Commonwealth

Jennifer Sprague’s Commonwealth closing acknowledged Clancy’s mental illness and genuine suicide attempt but argued that she remained criminally responsible and sought first-degree murder findings.

→
Closing
Closing Argument - Commonwealth Jennifer Sprague
42 lines

Sprague conceded mental illness and suicidal intent but argued that Lindsay retained criminal responsibility, planned the killings, and committed first-degree murder.

Highlights

Closing Argument - CommonwealthotherSprague conceded mental illness and a genuine suicide attempt while framing criminal responsibility at the time of the killings as the disputed issue.Closing Argument - Commonwealth“There's no dispute that Lindsay Clancy was suffering from mental illness and that she tried to kill herself.”— Jennifer SpragueConcedes mental illness and suicidal intent while separating them from the disputed question of criminal responsibility.Closing Argument - CommonwealthotherSprague reconstructed the errands, calls, stair activity, and suicide attempt to argue that Lindsay planned the opportunity and killed the children before Patrick's call.

4. Final Jury Instructions on Evidence, Burden of Proof, and Deliberations

Sullivan continued final jury instructions on mental impairment, evidence, reasonable doubt, and deliberations. A foreperson was appointed and six alternates selected before a requested sidebar.

→
Jury Instruction
Final Jury Instructions on Evidence, Burden of Proof, and Deliberations
31 lines

Sullivan clarified second-degree murder instructions, explained evidence and reasonable doubt, selected alternates, and outlined deliberation rules and verdict choices.

Procedural
Jury Submission and Overnight Admonitions
27 lines

Highlights

Final Jury Instructions on Evidence, Burden of Proof, and Deliberationsjury eventJurors were instructed that Clancy's statements to evaluating psychiatrists or psychologists could be considered only as a basis for opinions about her mental condition, not as proof of their contents or of premeditation, extreme atrocity or cruelty, or specific intent to kill.Final Jury Instructions on Evidence, Burden of Proof, and Deliberationsjury eventThe jury was reduced from eighteen to twelve deliberating jurors through the selection of six alternates. Sullivan instructed alternates not to discuss the case, including among themselves.
← Day 212026 Criminal TrialDay 23 →