secution's expert witnesses agreed that Clancy had not been in her right mind that night due to a number of factors, not least of which was the medley of psychiatric medications she was prescribed.

 No rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that she had no mental disease or defect when the Commonwealth's own proof established that she did,  Reddington wrote in his memo.

The prosecution contests that their witnesses' testimony came to that conclusion, and in fact argued the opposite.

Sullivan concludes that these experts  testified that it was their opinion that the defendant did not lack substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct and did not lack the substantial capacity to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law at the time of the killings. 

Sullivan adds that  Although the defendant also produced expert witnesses who disagreed with the Commonwealth's experts, it is within the discretion of the fact finder,  in this case being the jurors,  to place little or no weight on that evidence. 

Reddington declined to comment on the decision.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Nov. 2.