Defense attorney Kevin Reddington accused prosecutors of intentional misconduct after their expert witness asked Lindsay Clancy whether suicide was a "mortal sin", the second time the state injected religion into the Massachusetts murder trial.
Reddington moved for a mistrial Monday after prosecution psychologist Dr. Kirk Heilbrun testified that during his interview with the 36-year-old defendant, he asked her, "Isn't suicide a mortal sin?" Judge William Sullivan denied the motion, instructed the jury to disregard the statement, and warned the prosecution to rein in its witness. The jury was then excused for the day.
The exchange marked the second time prosecutors brought up the concept of mortal sin during the trial of Clancy, who strangled her three children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, with exercise bands at her Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in 2023. She has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, claiming postpartum psychosis drove her to kill. She is seeking commitment to a state mental health facility rather than prison.
Heilbrun had been testifying about Clancy's Catholic upbringing and her statements during his evaluation when he began relaying the question he posed to her about suicide and mortal sin. Reddington objected immediately. The judge ordered a sidebar, and after a short break, Reddington conferred with psychologist Dr. Paul Zeizel and his son Patrick Reddington, both part of the defense team, before formally moving for a mistrial.
Reddington did not mince words about the prosecution's pattern. He told the court the repeated references to Catholic doctrine were deliberate.
"At this point, this is a concern I have. This is over the top."
He went further: "I believe it was intentional misconduct." Under Massachusetts law, a witness's religious beliefs or opinions cannot be used to attack or support that witness's credibility. The prosecution had already crossed that line once, the Daily Mail reported, when Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham asked Sue Clancy, described as Patrick's mother, during testimony the prior week whether she was Catholic and whether she knew murder was a mortal sin.
At the time, Reddington chose not to seek a mistrial. When the Daily Mail asked him about it last week, he responded: "Why would I want a new trial?" But the second invocation of mortal sin changed his calculus. He consulted with Jay Carney, a longtime friend and fellow attorney who previously represented Whitey Bulger, before filing the motion.
Judge Sullivan sided with the prosecution on the mistrial question but left no ambiguity about his displeasure. He instructed the jury directly that religion "cannot be considered" and "must be disregarded." He then told the state's team to "strongly" talk to Heilbrun about the boundaries of his testimony. The Washington Examiner reported that Sullivan reprimanded the prosecution, calling the comments "immaterial, irrelevant, and to be disregarded."
Judges in high-profile criminal trials have broad discretion to deny mistrial motions while still signaling that the prosecution overstepped. Sullivan's decision to excuse the jury for the remainder of the day suggests he took the defense's concerns seriously, even if he concluded the trial could continue. In another recent murder case in Texas, a judge similarly denied a defense motion for a new trial while acknowledging procedural friction during proceedings.
Reddington acknowledged the toll the proceedings have taken. "This has obviously been a long trial for everyone involved," he said.
Beyond the mortal sin dispute, Heilbrun's testimony struck at the heart of Clancy's defense. He told the jury that Clancy was not in a state of psychosis when she killed her children but was instead severely suicidal. He described an 18-minute auditory command hallucination that Clancy reported, a voice telling her to kill the children, and noted that she only reported hearing such a voice on the day of the killings.
That pattern, Heilbrun testified, was deeply unusual. He told the court that roughly three aspects of Clancy's account "more closely resembled exaggerated or fabricated hallucinations," with only one appearing genuine and one he characterized as "kind of mixed."
"To put it mildly, that would be a very, very unusual pattern or manifestation for how this kind of thing comes about. Very unusual."
Heilbrun also testified about the concept of altruistic filicide, the belief by a parent that killing their children is an act of mercy or protection. He pointed to a phrase Clancy reportedly said to her children during the killings: "Go to God, baby." In Heilbrun's assessment, that statement pointed toward altruistic filicide rather than psychosis. Earlier testimony in the trial detailed how Clancy repeated that phrase to each child before strangling them.
Prosecutors also argued that Clancy showed premeditation. The Washington Examiner reported that the state contends Clancy searched a restaurant on Apple Maps before sending her husband away, calculating whether the trip would give her enough time to carry out the killings.
Heilbrun's testimony directly contradicted what the jury heard days earlier from defense witness Dr. Phillip Resnick, who testified Friday that Clancy was "frankly psychotic" when she killed her children. Resnick said he believed Clancy was driven by either altruistic filicide or what he called "acutely psychotic filicide." Both experts used the term altruistic filicide, but they drew opposite conclusions about whether Clancy was in her right mind.
The clash between expert witnesses is now the central fault line of the trial. Clancy admitted to the killings. The only question before the jury is whether she was legally insane when she committed them, and whether she should spend the rest of her life in prison or in a state mental health facility. The trial has already seen disruptions, including an earlier session cut short after the judge barred a TikTok witness and cited an "unforeseen circumstance."
Clancy, now paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair for life after what was described as a suicide attempt following the killings, sat through Monday's proceedings as the two sides battled over whether her mind was broken or her story was fabricated.
Judge Sullivan expects rebuttal testimony to continue Tuesday, with closing arguments anticipated for Wednesday. The jury will then decide whether a mother who killed three children under the age of six was a victim of catastrophic mental illness or a woman who planned the unthinkable and constructed a story to avoid prison.
The mortal sin question may have been struck from the record, but whether it lingers in jurors' minds is another matter. Judges in criminal trials walk a fine line between correcting prosecutorial overreach and handing the defense grounds for appeal. Sullivan chose to keep the trial moving. In a separate high-profile murder case, a Texas judge was removed after publicly backing a jury's guilty verdict, a reminder that judicial conduct in emotionally charged trials invites intense scrutiny from all sides.
Reddington's accusation of intentional misconduct is now part of the trial record. If Clancy is convicted, the prosecution's repeated references to Catholic doctrine could surface again on appeal. The defense attorney made clear he views the pattern as more than carelessness.
Three children are dead. Their mother admits she killed them. The system owes those children, and the public, a trial that follows its own rules, start to finish.
