admin
The courtroom in Plymouth got a reminder this week that even careful trials can go off the rails fast. A prosecution expert slipped into talk about Catholic teaching and “mortal sin” while testifying against Lindsay Clancy, and the defense promptly asked for a mistrial. Judge William Sullivan scolded the testimony as out of bounds but refused to throw out the case. That’s the development everyone in this trial room will now be watching closely.
Judge denies mistrial after religion comment
On the stand, Dr. Kirk Heilbrun — a forensic psychologist and professor at Drexel University — began recounting a conversation with the defendant and stumbled into religion. He mentioned Clancy’s Catholic upbringing and the idea that suicide could be a “mortal sin.” Defense attorney Kevin Reddington objected and moved for a mistrial. Judge William Sullivan called the religion talk “absolutely inappropriate,” told jurors to disregard it as “immaterial, irrelevant,” and sent them home rather than declare a mistrial. Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham and co-prosecutor Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague insisted the comments were not meant to inflame the jury. Fine words — but jurors notice what they hear.
Why the religion flare-up matters
This wasn’t a stray word. Two days earlier, prosecutors had already asked the victims’ grandmother about her Catholic faith and whether murder is a mortal sin. That pattern made the defense’s charge of willful misconduct sound less like sour grapes and more like a real problem. Courts are supposed to keep the focus on evidence and motive, not religious guilt. Judges often try to fix errors with a curt instruction to “ignore” something. Anyone who has listened to a jury box knows that jurors are human. You tell someone to forget a vivid phrase and you shouldn’t be surprised if it lingers.
Heilbrun’s testimony still hit the defense where it hurts
Let’s not lose sight of the larger point: Heilbrun did more than stray into theology. He told jurors he diagnosed Clancy with bipolar disorder but found no evidence of acute psychosis or a genuine command hallucination during the killings. He described her alleged voice as an 18-minute phenomenon that never appeared before or after — not the pattern experts expect with true psychosis. That testimony, along with other prosecution rebuttal witnesses, directly undercuts the defense’s postpartum psychosis theory. In plain terms: the prosecution is trying to show Clancy was suicidal and deeply troubled, but still capable of knowing right from wrong.
Legal fallout and a practical verdict
The judge’s rebuke helps the defense for now, but it may not erase the damage. If a conviction follows, expect appeals centered on whether the religion references improperly inflamed the jury. Appeals courts usually give judges leeway when they issue curative instructions, but repeated or strategic pushes into forbidden territory can change that calculus. Meanwhile, the trial will proceed on the more prosaic facts: the testimony, the searches, the texts, and whether the jury believes the mental-health defense. Lawyering aside, the most important question here is whether a jury can separate passion from proof — and whether the prosecution’s zeal crossed a line when it wandered into a pew for dramatic effect.
