Uploaded September 2026 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
There is a serious debate developing over whether the prosecution actually proved Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible. Some lawyers believe the state presented a poor case, changed theories between opening and closing, and mishandled important pieces of evidence. Some of those criticisms may even be legitimate. But there's a much bigger problem: are we asking the legal question the jury actually has to answer?
In today's show, I respond to the arguments being made about Clancy's insanity defense and separate weaknesses in the prosecution's presentation from what Massachusetts law actually requires. To be acquitted by reason of insanity, the relevant question isn't whether Clancy loved being a mother, whether she genuinely attempted suicide, whether the prosecution perfectly reconstructed the exercise bands, or whether its opening matched its closing. The question is whether mental disease left her unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct or unable to conform her conduct to the law. I explain why the evidence of Clancy making sequential decisions, moving between the children, returning her husband's phone call, and continuing with other deliberate conduct creates such a serious problem for that defense.
There are legitimate criticisms to make about this prosecution. But if those criticisms don't address psychosis or an inability to control her conduct, they don't answer the question that determines criminal responsibility. If you're not asking the right legal question, you can't get the right legal answer.
"BRANCA FOR SCOTUS" MUGS! thebrancashow-shop.fourthwall.com/products/branca-mug-001
JOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~17 cents/day! $5/month: youtube.com/channel/UC-GqXHAdxVUVMw2F_7h_X3Q/join
Visit Here: lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook
"You are wise to buy this material. I hope you watch it, internalize it, and keep it to the forefront whenever you even think of reaching for a gun"
-Massad Ayoob (President of the Second Amendment Foundation)
The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you.
➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors
➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble
➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style.
➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examples
Get Your Free Book: lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook
00:00 A New Clancy-Style Case?
01:17 Andrew Responds To Two Fellow Lawyers
01:47 The Debate Over Lindsay Clancy's Guilt
02:06 Would You Vote Not Guilty?
02:29 Did The Prosecution Blow This Case?
02:47 Andrew Concedes A Legitimate Criticism
03:34 Why The Opening May Not Matter Now
04:19 How The Prosecution Changed Its Theory
05:02 The Suicide Attempt Problem
06:06 The State's New Theory
06:45 Andrew Challenges The Argument
07:17 The “Altruistic” Killing Theory
07:36 She Was A Great Mom—Until She Wasn't
08:27 What Was Clancy Actually Anxious About?
09:17 Was This An Own Goal For Prosecutors?
09:27 Andrew Says NO
09:51 The Legal Question Everyone Is Missing
10:09 What Clancy Actually Had To Prove
10:23 Psychosis vs. Irresistible Compulsion
10:33 The Decisions Clancy Made
10:57 You're Not Addressing The Law
11:02 Could A Psychotic Person Still Plan?
11:50 The Phone Call Becomes Critical
12:05 Can An “Irresistible” Compulsion Be Interrupted?
12:39 The Defense's Different Timeline
13:07 The Exercise Band Dispute
14:12 What Andrew Expected The Defense To Do
15:06 Why Does Any Of This Matter?
15:28 How Long Did The Strangulations Take?
16:45 The Legal Problem Remains
17:20 How Strangulation Causes Unconsciousness
18:31 Were The Bands Tied?
19:24 Andrew Returns To The Actual Legal Test
19:44 Psychosis Or Irresistible Compulsion?
20:03 Joe Asks The Right Question
21:31 The Crushed Pills Dispute
22:38 The Evidence Was Never Tested
22:54 Andrew: It Still Doesn't Answer The Legal Question
23:13 Remove The Pills Entirely—The Problem Remains
There is a serious debate developing over whether the prosecution actually proved Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible. Some lawyers believe the state presented a poor case, changed theories between opening and closing, and mishandled important pieces of evidence. Some of those criticisms may even be legitimate. But there's a much bigger problem: are we asking the legal question the jury actually has to answer?
In today's show, I respond to the arguments being made about Clancy's insanity defense and separate weaknesses in the prosecution's presentation from what Massachusetts law actually requires. To be acquitted by reason of insanity, the relevant question isn't whether Clancy loved being a mother, whether she genuinely attempted suicide, whether the prosecution perfectly reconstructed the exercise bands, or whether its opening matched its closing. The question is whether mental disease left her unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct or unable to conform her conduct to the law. I explain why the evidence of Clancy making sequential decisions, moving between the children, returning her husband's phone call, and continuing with other deliberate conduct creates such a serious problem for that defense.
There are legitimate criticisms to make about this prosecution. But if those criticisms don't address psychosis or an inability to control her conduct, they don't answer the question that determines criminal responsibility. If you're not asking the right legal question, you can't get the right legal answer.
"BRANCA FOR SCOTUS" MUGS! thebrancashow-shop.fourthwall.com/products/branca-mug-001
JOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~17 cents/day! $5/month: youtube.com/channel/UC-GqXHAdxVUVMw2F_7h_X3Q/join
Visit Here: lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook
"You are wise to buy this material. I hope you watch it, internalize it, and keep it to the forefront whenever you even think of reaching for a gun"
-Massad Ayoob (President of the Second Amendment Foundation)
The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you.
➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors
➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble
➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style.
➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examples
Get Your Free Book: lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook
00:00 A New Clancy-Style Case?
01:17 Andrew Responds To Two Fellow Lawyers
01:47 The Debate Over Lindsay Clancy's Guilt
02:06 Would You Vote Not Guilty?
02:29 Did The Prosecution Blow This Case?
02:47 Andrew Concedes A Legitimate Criticism
03:34 Why The Opening May Not Matter Now
04:19 How The Prosecution Changed Its Theory
05:02 The Suicide Attempt Problem
06:06 The State's New Theory
06:45 Andrew Challenges The Argument
07:17 The “Altruistic” Killing Theory
07:36 She Was A Great Mom—Until She Wasn't
08:27 What Was Clancy Actually Anxious About?
09:17 Was This An Own Goal For Prosecutors?
09:27 Andrew Says NO
09:51 The Legal Question Everyone Is Missing
10:09 What Clancy Actually Had To Prove
10:23 Psychosis vs. Irresistible Compulsion
10:33 The Decisions Clancy Made
10:57 You're Not Addressing The Law
11:02 Could A Psychotic Person Still Plan?
11:50 The Phone Call Becomes Critical
12:05 Can An “Irresistible” Compulsion Be Interrupted?
12:39 The Defense's Different Timeline
13:07 The Exercise Band Dispute
14:12 What Andrew Expected The Defense To Do
15:06 Why Does Any Of This Matter?
15:28 How Long Did The Strangulations Take?
16:45 The Legal Problem Remains
17:20 How Strangulation Causes Unconsciousness
18:31 Were The Bands Tied?
19:24 Andrew Returns To The Actual Legal Test
19:44 Psychosis Or Irresistible Compulsion?
20:03 Joe Asks The Right Question
21:31 The Crushed Pills Dispute
22:38 The Evidence Was Never Tested
22:54 Andrew: It Still Doesn't Answer The Legal Question
23:13 Remove The Pills Entirely—The Problem Remains
