Lindsay Clancy's criminal trial, which ended in a mistrial with a jury deadlocked on murder charges, could provide significant leverage in her civil lawsuits against the doctors and hospitals she claims failed to properly diagnose and treat her, legal experts told The Post. Of the 12 jurors, 11 reportedly favored a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, suggesting a strong belief among them that medical providers had erred in Clancy's care.
This near-unanimous acquittal recommendation in the criminal proceedings could be used to negotiate a substantial settlement, potentially in the millions, in the civil cases. "It's like a leverage play when you're negotiating or mediating," said Seth Zuckerman, a New York lawyer specializing in criminal and civil litigation. "It's a case to say, look jurors have already heard this evidence and thought that the hospital was wrong and misdiagnosed her. And 11 out of 12 were prepared to find her not guilty because of this defect, which means basically that they didn’t think that the medical providers did the right thing by her."
Clancy, 36, is accused of strangling her three children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, on January 24, 2023, before attempting suicide. Her defense argued she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis, exacerbated by psychiatric medications prescribed by her doctors. Her civil lawsuits, as well as one filed by her then-husband Patrick Clancy, claim that healthcare providers failed to diagnose her mental health condition and overmedicated her during the four months leading up to the tragedy, during which she experienced insomnia, anxiety, depression, and intrusive thoughts about harming herself and her children.
Medical malpractice attorney Doug Burnetti echoed Zuckerman's assessment, stating that Clancy's civil legal team likely feels "emboldened to some extent." He suggested that a settlement could reach seven figures. The outcome of the criminal trial offers anecdotal evidence for the civil case, potentially persuading defense attorneys or insurance carriers to settle. Three jurors interviewed after the mistrial described the prosecution's case as "harsh" and noted that no witnesses testified to Clancy being a bad mother, leading them to believe she "snapped." Another juror felt the case had "too much gray area" and the prosecution lacked definitive proof.
Furthermore, the criminal case's conclusion impacts the civil proceedings in other ways. Clancy cannot be compelled to give a deposition in the civil suits until her criminal case is fully resolved. She also retains her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which could delay or halt discovery in the civil matter until any possibility of further criminal prosecution is exhausted. Testimony from the criminal trial could also be used to challenge or impeach witnesses in the civil case, potentially highlighting inconsistencies in their statements.
Among the defendants in Clancy's lawsuit is psychiatrist Dr. Jennifer Tufts, who met with Clancy multiple times in the months before the children's deaths. Clancy's lawsuit alleges Tufts failed to diagnose her with bipolar disorder and prescribed an SSRI that could worsen such symptoms. Tufts testified for two days during the criminal trial, facing extensive cross-examination. Her testimony could be scrutinized for inconsistencies in the civil case, especially given her role as a lead defendant.
Burnetti also noted that the intense media attention surrounding the trial could make selecting an unbiased jury for the civil case challenging. "There is going to be an impact because if you’ve heard of it, you’ve formed some opinion one way or the other," he said. He added that medical malpractice cases are inherently difficult to prove, as doctors are held to a