The Lindsay Clancy case has forced people to confront one of the hardest questions in criminal law: when does severe psychosis eliminate criminal responsibility? Matthew Schleier’s case in Iowa raises almost the exact same legal fight.
Schleier admitted strangling his 5-year-old son, Jack. Prosecutors argued the killing was premeditated, pointing to evidence that he had contemplated killing his child for days and considered different methods. His defense argued something very different: Schleier was suffering from psychosis and could not legally appreciate what he was doing.
The judge ultimately found him not guilty by reason of insanity.
In this video, we compare the Schleier case with Lindsay Clancy’s case, the evidence of planning, their documented mental-health problems, the competing expert testimony, and the uncomfortable question of whether the public views insanity differently depending on who the defendant is.
Was this justice—or did the insanity defense go too far?
UPDATE: Since this video was recorded, Lindsay Clancy’s first trial ended in a mistrial on September 4, 2026, after the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict.
TIMESTAMPS
00:00 – Introduction: Two Disturbingly Similar Cases
01:03 – Matthew Schleier and the Killing of His Son
01:44 – The Lindsay Clancy Case
02:44 – Evidence of Planning in Schleier’s Case
03:51 – Prosecutors vs. the Insanity Defense
05:09 – Comparing Schleier and Lindsay Clancy
06:05 – The Judge Delivers the Verdict
07:09 – The Gender and Insanity Debate
08:03 – Was This Justice? Final Thoughts
Need a lawyer?
If you or someone you know has been injured in an accident, don’t hesitate to reach out to me. You can contact me at 1-571- NATE-LAW or visit our website www.NateTheLawyer.com
Schedule a free consultation. Remember, you don’t pay unless they win your case!
Check Out The Podcast | https://linktr.ee/natethelawyer
Spotify = https://open.spotify.com/show/67OgSDffzx4bLOeIaBwLnA?si=5f5d2c2a74db42d3
Apple = https://podc
