How Lindsay Clancy’s Bid for a Two-Stage Trial Changes Who Decides Guilt and Mental Responsibility

Lindsay Clancy appeared in court in person for the first full hearing, but the bigger consequence is procedural: her team is pushing to split the criminal trial into two phases so guilt would be decided separately from whether she was legally insane. That maneuver immediately affects what evidence may be introduced, how psychiatric evaluations are handled, and the calendar leading into a July trial — with sensitive testing and filming disputes now part of the fight.

How splitting the trial would shift evidence, experts and timing for Lindsay Clancy

Seeking a two-stage trial — a bifurcation that would first determine guilt and then evaluate legal responsibility — changes litigation incentives. If accepted, jurors in phase one would focus primarily on whether the accused committed the acts alleged, while phase two would allow experts and different legal standards to assess mental state. The defense has signaled an insanity strategy tied to postpartum mental health; prosecutors counter that mental-health defenses are contested.

Here's the part that matters for courtroom strategy: disputes over how psychiatric testing is conducted and recorded now take on outsized importance. One objection raised concerns videotaping some parts of a mental evaluation because of proprietary material tied to forms; another position leaves open videotaping the expert-led evaluation itself. Those procedural choices will shape what the jury sees and what the experts can rely on when phase two begins.

Family presence and the defendant’s medical condition are also practical considerations. The defendant has previously attended hearings remotely from a hospital treatment program and was brought to court in a wheelchair for this first full in-person appearance. Counsel for the defense has emphasized gradual acclimation to in-person proceedings and expressed a desire for future in-person appearances where possible.

Event details and the immediate schedule

The charges in the case name three children by age: a 5-year-old, a 3-year-old and an 8-month-old. Prosecutors allege the deaths occurred on a night in January 2023 and include a claim that the defendant deliberately sent her husband out so she had time to commit the acts. The defense has framed the events in the context of serious postpartum mental health issues and intends to pursue an insanity defense; the defense has also filed civil litigation against medical providers that raises claims about medication and mental-state treatment.

After the alleged fatal injuries, the defendant leapt from a window and was left paralyzed, attending prior hearings remotely from a hospital treatment program until the recent in-person session. Parents of the defendant attended the courtroom hearing in person for the first time and have been visiting regularly.

• January 24, 2023 — Night when the children were killed, as described in the filings.
• October 2023 — The defendant was committed to a hospital treatment program and attended hearings remotely following that commitment.
• February 20, 2026 — First full in-person court appearance for the defendant.
• March 2 — Scheduled date for oral arguments on outstanding pretrial issues, including bifurcation.
• April 10 — Mental evaluation to be conducted by an expert chosen by prosecutors; parties are debating recording boundaries for parts of the process.
• June 18 — Further motions hearing ahead of the trial set for July 2026 in the county superior court.

The real question now is how a judge will rule on bifurcation and on limits around psychiatric evidence; those rulings will define how the July trial unfolds and what jurors may consider at each phase.

What’s easy to miss is how procedural rulings about videotaping and proprietary testing materials could have outsized effects on expert testimony later in the case. Small evidentiary choices now may narrow or broaden what experts can present to a jury during the separate phases.

Key practical implications include scheduling pressure on experts, potential limits on what jurors hear about mental health, and the logistical demands of transporting a defendant who is currently in a hospital treatment program. Family members who have been visiting daily and defense counsel seeking a phased trial will be watching the March and April dates as turning points for how the case is framed moving forward.

If you’re wondering why this keeps coming up: bifurcation is not just a timing tactic — it’s a structural change that can alter the legal standards applied at each stage and the order in which evidence and expert opinions are considered.