Crime & Law Foreign Affairs Policy Elections Foreign Adversaries Border & Invasion Economy & Energy The Receipts

Texas Republican Brandon Gill Blasts 'Medicalizing Evil' After Triple Murder Mistrial

Elena Ortiz
Elena Ortiz •

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) says he has "no sympathy" for Lindsay Clancy after her triple-murder trial ended in a mistrial, blasting the "medicalizing of evil" behind the postpartum psychosis defense.

Texas Republican Brandon Gill Blasts 'Medicalizing Evil' After Triple Murder Mistrial

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) says he has no sympathy for Lindsay Clancy after her murder trial ended in a mistrial this week, rejecting the defense argument that severe mental illness should erase criminal responsibility for the deaths of her three children.

"I don't have an ounce of sympathy for Lindsay Clancy," Gill said Friday on Fox News's "The Will Cain Show." "I have an enormous amount of sympathy for the three little innocent kids who were slaughtered."

Jury Deadlocks After Seven Days of Deliberation

Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial after jurors told him for the third time that they could not reach a unanimous verdict. The panel had spent seven days weighing whether Clancy, a 36-year-old former nurse, was criminally responsible for strangling Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, at the family's Massachusetts home in 2023.

The jury's failure to agree leaves the case in limbo. A mistrial means prosecutors have not proven their case, but it also means Clancy has not been acquitted. She remains held on murder charges at the mental health facility where she has been housed.

Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, made a dramatic last-ditch effort to block the mistrial, asking the judge to remove a holdout juror he accused of refusing to follow the court's instructions on reasonable doubt. Sullivan declined, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court denied an emergency appeal, paving the way for the mistrial.

Reddington said afterward that he believed 11 of the 12 jurors would have delivered a verdict favoring Clancy if not for the single holdout.

'We've Gotten in a Habit of Medicalizing Evil'

Gill pushed back hard against the heart of Clancy's defense, which argued she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was not criminally responsible when she killed her children.

"You don't get licensed to murder your children or anybody else just because you have mental health problems," Gill said. "We've gotten in a habit of medicalizing evil."

The Texas Republican's remarks landed as the case continues to dominate national headlines and inflame an ongoing debate over postpartum psychosis, criminal responsibility, and the limits of the insanity defense.

A Case That Divided the Nation

The trial drew massive public attention, with hundreds of supporters and observers gathering outside the courthouse and livestreams of the proceedings pulling in viewers from across the country. The case has even drawn comment from President Donald Trump.

"She did a horrible, horrible thing. Can't be worse," Trump said Friday when asked about the mistrial. "I assume there's going to be another trial. But you'll find out what the price to pay is. There'll be a price."

Prosecutors have argued Clancy was in control of her actions when she killed her children and then attempted suicide, leaving herself paralyzed. Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said his team will decide whether to pursue a new trial.

"The facts are Lindsay Clancy killed her three children and the evidence suggested to us that she was in control of her actions when she committed those homicides," Cruz said.

What Happens Next

A hearing is scheduled for September 29, where prosecutors could outline their next steps. Options include seeking a retrial or negotiating a plea agreement.

For now, Clancy remains in custody, and the families of the three murdered children are left waiting for a resolution that a deadlocked jury could not deliver. The mistrial has only sharpened the national argument over whether mental illness should be a license for the unthinkable -- a question that will now move into another round of legal and political battle.