Because of the misstep, Latarsha Sanders didn’t get a fair trial. The court vacated her convictions on two counts of first-degree murder and granted her a new trial. Sullivan declined to comment through a court spokesperson.
It remains to be seen whether the legal principle in the SJC opinion will surface in Clancy’s case, which covers some of the same territory as Sanders’ trial: Mothers charged with killing their children and asserting they are not criminally responsible for the offenses because of mental illness.
The SJC ruling puts attention on Sullivan as Clancy’s trial proceeds. The defense could begin presenting its case as early as next week. The cases against Sanders and Clancy were brought by the same prosecutor: Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz.
“The Sanders case sends a strong message to the trial judge that he must carefully follow the laws of evidence and permit the defendant to present a case based on all the evidence available,” said Denise Regan, an attorney who has mounted insanity defenses.
After the jury was dismissed on Thursday, Sullivan heard arguments about three medical experts Clancy wants to testify. They include a forensic pathologist and another doctor who would offer an opinion about the “appropriateness” of Clancy’s care and the medications she was prescribed.
Sullivan said he would rule on Friday.
The records at the center of Sanders’ case documented treatment she received for schizophrenia after her arrest and offered a medical foundation for her insanity defense. Her lawyer wanted a neuropsychologist who evaluated Sanders to testify about the documentation.
But Sullivan said no, and in doing so overlooked a state law that permits hospital records to be admitted based on their presumed reliability, the SJC said.
Because the jury never saw the records, the defense couldn’t pose questions about them to the neuropsychologist who evaluated Sanders, unless the prosecution delved into that material during cross examination. The district attorney’s office didn’t pursue such a line of questioning.
Prosecutors routinely challenge hospital records that point to mental illness in defendants who claim they are not criminally responsible, said attorney David Nathanson.
The prosecution may argue records are too remote in time, contain hearsay, or reflect malingering by a defendant, said Nathanson, a partner at Jellison & Nathanson in Boston.
The SJC decision provides clarity, he said.
“Those records are admissible, with some exceptions, and judges shouldn’t be excluding them and prosecutors shouldn’t try to exclude them,” Nathanson said.
Sanders acknowledged killing her children, Edson “Marlon” Brito, 8, and 5-year-old La’Son Brito, but asserted she was not guilty by reason of insanity.
Her defense said she was suffering from severe psychosis and delusions about the “Illuminati” and ritual sacrifices.
Clancy’s trial is in its second week of testimony and the prosecution is still putting on its case.
She has admitted to strangling 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan with exercise bands, but she has pleaded not guilty to three counts of first-degree murder.
Afterward, Clancy cutting her own wrists and throat and jumped from a second-story window in what her defense has described as a suicide attempt.
Prosecutors allege that Clancy planned and deliberately carried out the fatal attacks. They allege she was unhappy with her life, wanted to die by suicide, and killed her children because she didn’t think anyone could care for them as she did.
Her jump from a bedroom window left Clancy paralyzed and she uses a wheelchair.
Testimony on Monday marked the first time jurors heard evidence related to the defense’s claim that Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis when she strangled her three children on Jan. 24, 2023.
Attorney Keith Halpern said mental illness can be an ongoing condition for some and jurors should be informed whether a defendant contesting their criminal responsibility has been diagnosed with psychotic illness.
“The fact that someone is mentally ill on one day doesn’t limit the relevance of that illness to one day,” said Halpern, who has represented clients who offered insanity defenses. “It could have gone on for months or years.”
Travis Andersen of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
Laura Crimaldi can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her @lauracrimaldi.
