A New York City judge has found Dimone Fleming not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect after she took the lives of her two young sons in 2022. The ruling comes as a Massachusetts jury deliberates the fate of Lindsay Clancy, whose case has drawn national attention for similar claims of postpartum psychosis.
The legal standard for an insanity defense varies by jurisdiction, but generally requires proving that a defendant was unable to understand the nature of their actions or distinguish right from wrong at the time of the offense. In New York, where Fleming’s case was adjudicated, the burden falls on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that mental illness rendered them incapable of understanding or controlling their conduct. This represents one of the most challenging defenses to mount successfully in criminal court.
Fleming, now 26, had repeatedly stabbed her sons — Octavius Canada, 11 months, and Daishawn Fleming, 3 — before submerging them in a bathtub, The New York Times reported. Police found her on November 26, 2022, at a family shelter. She was naked from the waist up and was pretending to read a children’s book that was upside down at the time.
The bizarre behavior observed by responding officers would later become crucial evidence supporting the defense’s argument that Fleming was experiencing a complete break from reality. Such dissociative behavior is often cited by mental health professionals as indicative of severe psychotic episodes, particularly when combined with other symptoms of mental deterioration.
Fleming’s case has drawn far less media attention than the Clancy trial, despite raising similar questions about maternal mental health and criminal responsibility.
The disparity in coverage raises broader questions about which cases capture public attention and why. Both involve mothers accused of killing their children while allegedly suffering from severe mental illness, yet the level of scrutiny and public discourse surrounding each case has been markedly different. Legal observers note that such differences in attention can influence not only public perception but also the resources and expert testimony available to defendants.
According to court documents, Fleming had been seen at the Floating Hospital in Queens for some time prior to the incident. After being diagnosed with a major depressive disorder, she’d been prescribed medication to manage the symptoms. Instead of taking the medication, however, Fleming had used marijuana on a daily basis — and her condition worsened considerably.
The issue of medication non-compliance is common in cases involving severe mental illness and often becomes a contentious point in legal proceedings. Prosecutors may argue that a defendant’s choice not to take prescribed medication demonstrates awareness and decision-making capacity, while defense attorneys typically maintain that the failure to take medication is itself a symptom of the underlying psychiatric condition. Mental health advocates have long argued that the ability to consistently manage medication regimens requires a level of executive function that severely ill individuals often lack.
Dr. Eric Goldsmith, who examined Fleming on behalf of the prosecution, determined that she was “grossly psychotic and out of touch with reality” the night of the incident.
“grossly psychotic and out of touch with reality”
Goldsmith also said in his report that Fleming had been hallucinating, believing that she was inhabited by another spirit and that the world was ending. Defense psychiatrists wrote that Fleming believed her actions were necessary to “cleanse” her children.
The convergence of expert opinion from both prosecution and defense psychiatrists is relatively unusual in insanity cases. More commonly, expert witnesses present sharply diverging assessments of a defendant’s mental state. When a prosecution expert concedes that a defendant was experiencing psychosis, it significantly strengthens the foundation for a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict.
The Clancy case presents similar claims. Lindsay Clancy says she heard a male voice telling her that she had to take the lives of her children and then herself. She had spent months in and out of different doctors’ offices, and had been prescribed a cocktail of different psychiatric drugs — but several reports indicated that she had not been taking them reliably.
In Clancy’s case, the defense has also cited postpartum depression and psychosis — and a lengthy list of medications — when arguing that she should not be held criminally responsible for strangling her three young children.
The prosecution has argued that Clancy’s actions show deliberate and willful planning and a clear awareness that she understood the difference between right and wrong.
This tension between evidence of planning and claims of psychosis represents the central challenge in many insanity defenses. Legal experts note that psychotic individuals can still engage in sequential actions that appear organized, even while operating under delusional beliefs. The question for juries becomes whether apparent planning negates claims of mental incapacity, or whether planning can coexist with a fundamentally distorted perception of reality.
The jury in Clancy’s case deliberated for several hours on Thursday and nearly a full day on Friday. They are expected to return to deliberations on Monday.
