Defense Strategy Goes Viral After Shocking Trial — Judge Warns Copycat Cases Coming

Liberty Check

• Insanity defenses in child murder cases are surging, raising questions about accountability and the exploitation of mental health claims
• A retired judge admits he never understood postpartum conditions until a high-profile trial changed his perspective — revealing gaps in judicial expertise
• Two mothers accused of killing their children now share eerily similar defense strategies, spotlighting failures in mental health treatment and legal responsibility

A North Carolina mother accused of murdering her 3-year-old son is pursuing an insanity defense that mirrors a controversial Massachusetts case, prompting a retired judge to warn that similar strategies may become more common in criminal courts.

Andrea Faust, 41, faces charges of murder and attempted murder following the Feb. 12 death of her young son and the attempted killing of her 2-year-old at their Durham home. Her legal team has filed notice of intent to argue not guilty by reason of insanity and diminished capacity.

The approach echoes the defense mounted by Lindsay Clancy, who is accused of killing her three children in 2023. Clancy’s trial has drawn national attention as her attorneys argue she suffered from postpartum psychosis and could not distinguish right from wrong.

Retired Massachusetts Superior Judge Jack Lu predicts the Clancy case will inspire more defendants to raise similar defenses as postpartum mental health conditions gain prominence in the legal system.

“Most of the time, these criminal responsibility, insanity, mental health defenses are unsuccessful,” Lu said.

In Faust’s case, defense attorney Nicole Galinsky says a defense expert concluded her client could not distinguish right from wrong during the alleged murders. Galinsky drew direct comparisons between the two cases.

“Andrea and Lindsay’s cases are eerily similar, though not entirely the same,” Galinsky said.

While Faust was not diagnosed with postpartum psychosis, Galinsky emphasized both women were “loving, doting, responsible mothers” until the moment of the alleged crimes. Both reportedly struggled with hallucinations, hospitalizations, and mental health crises.

“Neither woman did this out of the blue,” Galinsky said. “Both were struggling enormously with their mental health. But, like most women and almost all moms, they were just trying to get through each day, care for their children, be a good mom/wife/employee. Both were seeking help from doctors who weren’t really taking their concerns seriously.”

She continued: “Both of these cases highlight the failure in our society to take women and mothers seriously when it comes to their mental health. Both of these women advocated for themselves countless times and—for what? It got them nowhere.”

Lu acknowledged that society and the legal system have not fully grasped the effects of postpartum mental illness on criminal responsibility. He admitted the Clancy trial changed his own understanding.

“I had no real understanding of what a person like Ms. Clancy was going through until this trial,” he said.

Faust was initially found incapable of proceeding to trial in March after court records documented serious concerns about her mental health and safety. Central Regional Hospital later found her capable of proceeding as of May 21. Her attorney said another evaluation would examine her mental state at the time of the alleged offenses.

Lu said mental-health defenses should receive more serious consideration because they can explain behavior and reduce moral culpability. But he warned that cases involving children face an uphill battle with jurors.

“These cases should have legs,” Lu said, “but unfortunately society and juries don’t give them much credence.”

As of Friday, jurors in the Clancy case ended a second day of deliberations without reaching a verdict. They will return Monday morning to continue their work.

It’s time to push back.