Cully Stimson, a Heritage Foundation legal fellow, has raised concerns about Judge William Sullivan’s instructions to jurors in the triple-murder trial of Lindsay Clancy.

Stimson expressed his criticism Monday as deliberations continued. He noted that Massachusetts typically instructs jurors to exclude maximum penalties from their consideration of charges, but Sullivan instructed the Clancy jury on the specific maximum penalties for each charge they were considering.

Stimson warned this approach could encourage what he called “sentence bargaining,” where jurors might settle on manslaughter based on punishment rather than their findings about guilt. He stated: “The fact that the judge threw this into the punch bowl disturbs me.”

Stimson also interpreted the jury’s request to examine a knife found in Clancy’s bedroom and two bags containing prescription medications as an indication they were scrutinizing evidence closely.

The case involves the deaths of three children—Cora, age 5; Dawson, age 3; and Callan, 8 months—who died in January 2023. Prosecutors allege that Clancy deliberately caused their deaths, while the defense argues severe mental illness rendered her without criminal responsibility.

Jurors have heard testimony from investigators, relatives, and medical experts over weeks of proceedings before returning to the Plymouth Superior Court for Monday’s deliberations following a weekend break.

Under Massachusetts law, once criminal responsibility is at issue, prosecutors must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury must determine whether Clancy’s mental condition deprived her of substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions or to conform them to law.

If found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, authorities may seek commitment to a mental health facility for ongoing care.