EP#226 | The Lindsey Clancy Trial: When Morality Collides With the Law

Sponsored by EasyDNS Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record: https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord Use promo code: notonrecord The discussion looks at the unusual legal position now facing the defence, including a motion asking the judge to enter an acquittal following the hung jury. We examine how reasonable doubt works, why a jury cannot simply substitute its personal morality for the law, and the important differences between the Massachusetts approach and Canada’s law on not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Joseph also draws on his 19 years sitting on the Ontario Review Board and his experience handling mental health cases to explain psychosis, command hallucinations, postpartum depression, infanticide and what actually happens when someone is found not criminally responsible. The episode also addresses the evidence surrounding Clancy’s alleged suicide attempts, the role of her reported mental illness, her civil action against physicians, and why finding someone not criminally responsible is absolutely not a “get out of jail free card.” A difficult case raises difficult questions, but the legal system still requires jurors to apply the law, even when the facts are emotionally overwhelming. Subscribe to *Not On Record*, leave a comment, and let us know what you think. This discussion is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.