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

THE COURT: And then after the closing arguments, I'll come back and give you some more general instructions about how you—the burdens of proof and how you are to go forward and do your deliberations and handle the deliberations. All right? So they take a while. All right? And they can be—well, they can't... I was gonna say rather dry, but they are dry. And so what the parties and myself have agreed to do is I'm gonna print out—we printed out the instructions that I'm gonna read to you, so you'll have those with you, all right, as we go through this morning. And so some people find that helpful to read along and comprehend. Some people don't. So if it's a distraction, you don't have to read it, but some people find it helpful, so we thought we'd do that. You also should know that you'll have these instructions. You can bring these with you in the deliberations. So you'll have this whole outline of what the law is that—so that you are to apply. All right?

So at this point, if we could hand out the copies of the instructions. Oh, you already have those? I forget how efficient our court offices here are. So what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna start the instructions now. All right? Now, so my instructions on the law are going to be delivered to you in two phases. As I said, first, I'm gonna instruct you on the specific indictments that have been brought against Ms. Clancy. After I conclude my instructions regarding the charges, the Assistant District Attorney, Ms. Sprague, will—and Attorney Reddington will each deliver their closing argument. Remember, the arguments of counsel are not themselves evidence. They're provided to assist you in organizing and understanding the evidence that's been presented during the trial and the conclusions that each party would like you to draw from that evidence. At the conclusion of the attorney's closing arguments, I'll give you the second part of my jury instructions.

And in that phase, I will give you and go over a number of very important principles that will guide your overall evaluation of the evidence, your deliberations, and your eventual verdict. The instructions are to be taken and considered in whole. All right? So the first and second part are equally important. So you're to consider all my instructions as a whole. You'll notice, as I said, I'm reading these instructions to you. Excuse me. I apologize for doing that, but I have to give these instructions clearly and accurately. So as I said, to assist you in your deliberations, I've provided you with written copies of these instructions.

THE COURT: Now, in this case, Ms. Clancy is charged with three counts of murder. I wanna talk first about the issue of criminal responsibility. All right. Now, to prove the defendant guilty of any crime, the Commonwealth must first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible at the time the alleged crime was committed. The Commonwealth bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime with which she is charged, and also that the defendant is criminally responsible for her conduct. The defendant has no burden to prove a lack of criminal responsibility. Criminal responsibility is a legal term. A person is not criminally responsible for her conduct if she has a mental disease or defect, and as a result of that mental disease or defect, she lacks the substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law.

The phrase mental disease or defect is a legal term, not a medical term. It need not fit into a formal medical diagnosis. The phrase mental disease or defect does not include any abnormality characterized only by repeated criminal conduct. It is for you to determine in light of all the evidence, whether the defendant had a mental disease or defect. If the Commonwealth has proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time of the killing, the Commonwealth has satisfied its burden of proving that the defendant was criminally responsible. If the Commonwealth has not proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time of the killing, then you must consider whether, as a result of a mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked the substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law.

THE COURT: To establish that the defendant had the substantial capacity to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any mental disease or defect that may have existed did not deprive the defendant of her ability to behave as the law requires, that is, to obey the law. The word appreciate means to understand rather than merely to know. Criminality means the legal significance of conduct. Wrongfulness means the moral significance. The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant knew and understood that her conduct was illegal or that it was wrong. It's not enough for the Commonwealth to show that the defendant merely knew or was intellectually aware that her conduct was illegal or wrong. Rather, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a mental disease or defect did not deprive the defendant of a meaningful understanding of the legal or moral significance of her conduct.

The defendant must have been able to realize, in some meaningful way, that her conduct was illegal or wrong. In considering whether the Commonwealth has met its burden of proof, you may consider all the evidence that's been presented at this trial. You may consider the facts underlying the crime and evidence of the defendant's actions before and after the crime. You may consider the opinions of any experts who testified and give those opinions whatever weight you think they deserve. Now, in a moment, I'll instruct you on the elements of the offense that the Commonwealth alleges that the defendant has committed. Remember that the Commonwealth must prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible at the time that the crime was committed, that is, that the defendant did not lack criminal responsibility at that time.

Therefore, it is the Commonwealth's burden to prove at least one of the following beyond a reasonable doubt: one, that at the time of the alleged crime, the defendant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect; or two, that if the defendant did suffer from a mental disease or defect, she nonetheless retained the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of her conduct and to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law. Now, as I previously instructed you, your decision should be based solely on the evidence and the law of this case. If the defendant is found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, the district attorney or another appropriate authority may, and generally does, petition the court to commit the defendant to a mental health facility or to Bridgewater State Hospital. If the court concludes that the defendant is mentally ill and that her discharge would create a substantial likelihood of serious harm to herself or others, then the court will grant the petition and commit the defendant to a proper mental health facility or to Bridgewater State Hospital. Periodically, the court reviews the order of commitment.

THE COURT: I'm gonna go over at this point the specific elements of the charges against Ms. Clancy. So I wanna talk first about murder in the first degree. The defendant is charged with three separate indictments charging murder, one count each relating to Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy, and Callan Clancy. The instructions I'm going to give now apply to each separate indictment relating to each child. There are two different degrees of murder. There's murder in the first degree, and there's murder in the second degree. If you find the defendant guilty of murder, you shall decide the degree of murder. The Commonwealth alleges that the defendant committed murder in the first degree on the following theories. First, that it was murder with deliberate premeditation, and then second, and/or it was murder with extreme atrocity or cruelty. To find the defendant guilty on any of these theories of murder, you must be unanimous.

That is, all of the deliberating jurors must agree that the Commonwealth has met its burden of proving every required element of that theory beyond a reasonable doubt. You should check the appropriate box or boxes on the verdict slip as to each theory of which you agree unanimously, and I'll go over a little bit later the verdict slip and how that is gonna be handled. Now, so if you're unable to agree unanimously that the Commonwealth has met its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt either of these theories of first-degree murder, you shall consider whether the Commonwealth has proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder in the second degree. So I'm gonna begin by instructing you on the elements and the additional requirements of proof for each of these theories of murder in the first degree, and then I'll instruct you on murder in the second degree. All right. So number one, I'll first define the elements of murder in the first degree with deliberate premeditation.

THE COURT: To prove the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree with deliberate premeditation, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements. One, the defendant caused the death of Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy, and/or Callan Clancy. Two, the defendant intended to kill Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy, and/or Callan Clancy. That is, the defendant consciously and purposefully intended to cause Cora Clancy's, Dawson Clancy's, and/or Callan Clancy's death. And three, that the defendant committed the killing with deliberate premeditation. That is, she decided to kill after a period of reflection. I'll now discuss each of these requirements in more detail. The first element is that the defendant caused the death of Cora, Dawson, and/or Callan Clancy. A defendant's act is the cause of death where the act, in a natural and continuous sequence, results in death, and without which death would not have occurred.

The second element is that the defendant intended to kill Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy, and/or Callan Clancy. That is, the defendant consciously and purposefully intended to cause the death. The third element is that the defendant committed the killing with deliberate premeditation. That is, she decided to kill after a period of reflection. Deliberate premeditation does not require any particular length of time of reflection. A decision to kill may be formed over a period of days, hours, or even seconds. The key is the sequence of the thought process, and it would be first the consideration whether to kill, second the decision to kill, and third the killing arising from that decision. There is no deliberate premeditation where the action is taken so quickly that a defendant takes no time to reflect on the action and then to decide to do it. In deciding whether the defendant intended to kill the deceased and whether she formed that intent with deliberate premeditation, you may consider any credible evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental impairment or was affected by her consumption of prescription drugs. A defendant may form the required intent and act with deliberate premeditation even if she suffered from a mental impairment or consumed prescription drugs, but you may consider that evidence.

THE COURT: Now, I want to talk about the second theory of first-degree murder, which is murder with extreme atrocity or cruelty. Now, you shall consider this theory of murder in the first degree regardless of whether or not you find that the Commonwealth has proved murder in the first degree with deliberate premeditation, which I just discussed. To prove the defendant guilty of murder with extreme atrocity or cruelty, the Commonwealth must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt. One, that the defendant caused the death of Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy, and or Callan Clancy. Second element, the defendant either, A, intended to kill Cora, Dawson, and or Callan Clancy; B, she intended to cause grievous bodily harm to Cora, Dawson, and or Callan Clancy; or C, intended to do an act which, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result.

The third element was that the killing was committed with extreme atrocity and cruelty. Extreme atrocity or cruelty, I'm sorry. I'll now discuss each of these requirements in more detail. The first element to this theory is that the defendant caused the death of Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy, and or Callan Clancy. A defendant's act is the cause of death where the act is a natural and continuous sequence, results in death without which death would not have occurred. The second element is about the defendant's intent, which the Commonwealth must prove in at least one of three ways. These are that the defendant, A, intended to kill Cora, Dawson, and or Callan Clancy; or B, intended to cause grievous bodily harm to Cora, Dawson, and or Callan Clancy; or C, intended to do an act which, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result.

As you can see, to this intent element, the Commonwealth satisfies its burden if it proves the defendant's intent beyond a reasonable doubt in any one of those three ways. The first way of proving intent, that the defendant intended to kill, is the same as the second element of murder in the first degree with deliberate premeditation, which I discussed a few minutes ago. The second and third ways of proving intent are different from any element of murder in the first degree with deliberate premeditation. So, the second way is that the defendant intended to cause grievous bodily harm to Cora, Dawson, and or Callan Clancy. Grievous bodily harm means severe injury to the body. The third way to prove this is that the defendant intended to do an act which, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result. Let me help you to understand how to analyze this third way of proving the defendant's intent.

THE COURT: You must first determine whether the defendant intended to perform the act that caused the death. So, if you find that the defendant intended to perform the act, then you must determine what the defendant herself actually knew about the relevant circumstances at the time she acted. Then you must determine whether, under the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known that the act created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result. In deciding whether the defendant intended to kill, intended to cause grievous bodily harm, or intended to do an act which in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result, you may consider any credible evidence that the defendant suffered from mental impairment or was affected by her consumption of prescription drugs.

A defendant may have the requisite intent even if she suffered from a mental impairment or consumed drugs, but you may consider such evidence in determining whether the Commonwealth has proved this element. Now, the third element in this theory is that the killing was committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty. Extreme atrocity means an act that is extremely wicked or brutal, appalling, horrifying, or utterly revolting. Extreme cruelty means that the defendant caused the person's death by a method that surpassed the cruelty inherent in the taking of a human life. You must determine whether the method or means of killing is so shocking as to amount to murder with extreme atrocity or cruelty. The inquiry focuses on the defendant's actions in terms of the manner and means of inflicting death and on the resulting effect on the deceased.

In deciding whether the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant caused the death with extreme atrocity or cruelty, you must consider the following factors. One, whether the defendant was indifferent to or took pleasure in the suffering of the deceased. Two, whether the defendant's method or means of killing was reasonably likely to substantially increase or prolong the conscious suffering of the deceased. Or three, whether the means used by the defendant were excessive and out of proportion to what would be needed to kill a person. In considering whether the means used by the defendant were excessive and out of proportion to what would be needed to kill a person, you may consider: A, the extent of the injuries to the deceased; B, the number of blows delivered; C, the manner, degree, and severity of the force used; and D, the nature of the weapon, instrument, or method used. You cannot make a finding of extreme atrocity or cruelty unless it is based on one or more of the factors that I just listed.

THE COURT: The Commonwealth is not required to prove that the defendant intended to cause the death. And the third element is that the defendant's conduct was wanton or reckless. Wanton or reckless conduct is conduct that creates, excuse me, a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result to another. It is conduct involving a grave risk of harm to another that a person undertakes with indifference to or disregard the consequences of such conduct. If the defendant realized the grave risk created by her conduct, her subsequent act amounts to wanton or reckless conduct, whether or not a reasonable person would have realized the risk of grave danger. Even if the defendant did not realize the grave risk of harm to another, however, the act constitutes wanton or reckless conduct if a reasonable person, knowing what the defendant knew, would have realized that the act posed a risk of grave danger to another.

It is not enough for the Commonwealth to prove the defendant acted negligently, that is, in a manner that reasonably careful persons would not have acted. The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant's actions went beyond negligence and amounted to wanton or reckless conduct, as I've defined that term. So in deciding whether the defendant knew or should have known her conduct created a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm would result to another, you may consider any credible evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental impairment or was affected by her consumption of prescription drugs. A defendant may have the requisite knowledge even if she suffered from a mental impairment or consumed prescription drugs, but you may consider such evidence in determining whether the Commonwealth has proved this element. All right? So that's my instructions on the specific elements of the charges in this case. So at this point, I'm gonna ask the attorneys to deliver their closing arguments. I just wanna remind you, as important as they are, the closing arguments are not evidence. All right? And I'll go over that a little bit later, but I just wanted to remind you that. And so after we go through the closing arguments, I'll come back and give you the balance of my instructions on the law. All right. And so, counsel.