Lindsay Clancy trial: What can the jurors expect to hear in closing arguments?

Lindsay Clancy trial: What can the jurors expect to hear in closing arguments? CAROLINE POLISI CBS NEWS LEGAL ANALYST IS ALWAYS WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO PROMISE TO SHOW THE JURORS. CLOSING ARGUMENTS IS NOW WHAT THEY'VE PROVEN IN COURT THROUGH THIS TESTIMONY OF EVERYONE THEY'VE PUT ON. WHAT DID THEY SAY IN OPENINGS? THEY SAID THIS WOMAN WAS EXTREMELY CONTROLLING, METICULOUS AND MANIPULATIVE, MANIPULATING HER HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. THEY SAID THIS WAS A WOMAN WHO NO LONGER LIKED THE LIFE SHE THOUGHT SHE WANTED, OK? AND THEN, IMPORTANTLY, THEY SAID, THIS WAS A WOMAN OPERATING UNDER A SEVERE POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION, BUT NOT POSTPARTUM PSYCHOSIS. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE. THEY SAID SHE DID NOT HEAR THOSE COMMAND HALLUCINATIONS TO KILL HER CHILDREN, WHICH THE DEFENSE SO ARDENTLY IS ARGUING FOR. THEY SAID SHE HAD THE CAPACITY TO CONFORM HER CONDUCT TO THE LAW. AND THEY SAID SHE HAD A KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF RIGHT FROM WRONG. SO, DID THAT BEAR OUT? THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO SEE IN CLOSING ARGUMENTS. I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK THEY SHOWED THAT SHE WAS MANIPULATIVE AND/OR, YOU KNOW, CONTROLLING, THAT SHE NO LONGER LIKED HER LIFE. BUT THE QUESTION, YOU GUYS, THE ULTIMATE QUESTION HERE IS WHAT WAS HER STATE OF MIND AT THE TIME OF THE KILLINGS? THAT IS THE QUESTION. SO, WHAT IF SHE IS FOUND NOT GUILTY DUE TO REASON OF INSANITY? THERE'S A MISCONCEPTION ABOUT THIS. SHE'S NOT GOING FREE IF SHE IS FOUND NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY. SHE WOULD THEN BE COMMITTED TO A STATE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY, WHERE SHE IS NOW, INDEFINITELY. ANDREA YATES IS STILL IN A MENTAL FACILITY, OK. AND OFTEN, YOU KNOW, THE STATISTICS BEAR OUT THAT IF YOU'RE FOUND NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY, YOU OFTEN SPEND MORE TIME IN A MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY THAN YOU WOULD HAVE HAD YOU BEEN FOUND GUILTY IN JAIL. AND SO THE PROCESS IS A CIVIL COMMITMENT. THE PROCESS WOULD BE, SHE WOULD BE THERE, SHE WOULD BE EVALUATED, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS HER DOCTORS FEEL SHE'S READY TO, YOU KNOW, SHE'S ABLE TO ENTER SOCIETY. AND THEN, IT WOULD GO TO A JUDGE TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT SHE CAN, YOU KNOW, SHE'S NOT A DANGER TO HERSELF OR OTHERS. AND THIS IS A FACTS AND LAW CASE. BUT THIS ONE HAS BECOME MUCH LARGER, WITH A MUCH BROADER CONVERSATION ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH, ABOUT WHETHER YOU CAN BE WELL SERVED OR DISSERVED BY THE PROCESS. ALL THAT'S GOING ON OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM. YEAH, I MEAN, THERE'S NO DENYING THIS HAS TAKEN OFF THE- THERE'S A REASON THAT THIS HAS SPARKED A NATIONAL CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM FAILED LINDSAY CLANCY. THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED BY JURORS. THERE IS THE LEGAL ISSUE. THERE'S A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT OUT THERE, I THINK, WHERE PEOPLE ARE SAYING, A MENTAL HEALTH ILLNESS SHOULD NOT ABSOLVE YOU OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE LAW SAYS, OK? THE LAW CARVES OUT A VERY SMALL SLIVER OF A MENTAL STATE OF MIND THAT POTENTIALLY ABSOLVES YOU OF LIABILITY. AND THIS IS THE SPECIFIC CASE THAT THE DEFENSE IS ARGUING IS ONE.