A Massachusetts woman charged with murder for killing her three children while being treated for postpartum depression agreed today not to challenge DNA evidence from prosecutors. Lindsay Clancy does not deny killing 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan in their home in Duxbury on Jan. 24, 2023. Her defense is that she's not guilty by reason of insanity.Her lawyer Kevin Reddington said today (Tuesday, August 4, day 6) that the stipulation will eliminate the need for some testimony. Judge William Sullivan in Plymouth County Superior Court questioned Clancy about the decision. "Now, do you understand that the Commonwealth in this case is required to prove each and every element of the case against you beyond a reasonable doubt? Do you understand that?" Sullivan asked. "Yes, Your Honor," Clancy answered. "Alright. You understand that there are certain facts that could be introduced during the course of the trial that would support, might support the Commonwealth's position regarding those elements. Do you understand that?" Sullivan asked. "Yes, Your Honor," Clancy answered. "And you understand that by signing the stipulation, you agree that the Commonwealth does not have to prove these certain facts that are contained in the stipulation. Do you understand that?" Sullivan asked. "Yes, Your Honor," Clancy answered. "And do you understand by signing or going along with that stipulation, you are basically relieving the Commonwealth of its burden to prove those certain facts. Do you understand that?" Sullivan asked. "Yes, Your Honor," Clancy answered. "The Commonwealth, as I said to you before, has the burden of proving you are guilty of each element of the charges against you. And by entering into this stipulation, you're giving up your right to force the Commonwealth to prove the facts that are contained in these stipulations. Do you understand that?" Sullivan asked. "Yes, Your Honor," Clancy answered. "You also, if you wanted to, could call your own witnesses at the trial to contest these stipulated facts. If you wanted to, you understand, you'd be giving up that right by entering into this stipulation?" Sullivan asked. "Yes, Your Honor," Clancy answered. "You also, at trial, have the right to remain silent and cannot be forced to testify at this. You understand by entering into this stipulation, you're giving up in a limited way that right with respect to just those facts?" Sullivan asked. "Yes, Your Honor," Clancy answered. Sullvian determined that Clancy "has knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily, and willingly entered into the stipulation of the facts that are contained and summarized in Exhibit J for identification. I find that she is competent to enter into this stipulation. I find she understands the consequences of entering into this stipulation. So accordingly, I now accept the proposed stipulation of facts." Reddington said the evidence to which they're stipulating is about DNA. "I just would like, Your Honor, for the record, to again reiterate the fact that we have not been contesting the government's case in chief ... This stipulation basically relieves the government of having to bring in dozens, if not more, witnesses to prove chain of custody of blood, fluids, the bands, DNA, all of that. Rather than have days of testimony, the stipulation will avoid that," Reddington said. #law #crime #court - @meghannmcuniff