Hidden True Crime - ONE JUROR: Inside the 11–1 Split That Derailed the Lindsay Clancy Trial Into a Mistrial

Episode Date: September 5, 2026

The Lindsay Clancy trial has ended in a mistrial after seven days of deliberations—and Lauren Matthias breaks down the explosive 11–1 jury split, the holdout juror accused of refusing to properly apply reasonable doubt, and the defense’s emergency appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. We examine the heated courtroom exchanges, Kevin Reddington’s claim that the jury was “robbed by one man,” District Attorney Timothy Cruz’s response, Patrick Clancy’s heartbreaking statement, and whether Lindsay could now face a second murder trial. About Hidden True Crime What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Thank you for your support through sponsorships, subscribing, listening, and becoming a Patreon member at⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/HiddenTrueCrime⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hello, Hidden Gems. I've missed everyone. It's been a while. Last time we talked, I did not think it was going to be seven days. Seven days of deliberating, right? Seven days. So it's been a while. I've missed you guys, and we have a lot, a lot, a lot to talk about.

So thanks for being here. Grab a drink. Thank you for being in the chat. There are a lot of strong feelings today. I even have some strong feelings. I'm going to share a little bit of them with you tonight. But let's keep the chat respectful of everyone's differing beliefs. And I'm just so glad that everyone is here after seven days, seven days.

I'm glad hidden true crimes are back. Hidden true crime gems are back together because the Lindsay Clancy trial did not end in a way any of us thought. or I don't think either side wanted it to end this way. After seven days of deliberations, the jury still had not reached a verdict. Yeah, I know, right? And according to the jury themselves, the reason that they couldn't get there was because one juror was refusing to properly apply the law as the judge instructed. So tonight, I want to, as I always do every night on our daily recap,

walk through everything that happened during those seven days of deliberations, what led to the mistrial, what we know about this holdout juror and where this case goes from here. And I'm going to be honest with you, as I said, about some of my feelings. Because this one, it does, I'll just say this, it does have me angry. It does. So there you go. After closing arguments last Thursday, the jury went back to deliberate. And at first, everything seemed pretty normal. Nobody expected this jury to come back in a few hours, right? No one expected a three-hour verdict, not even me. And I'm known to be terrible at predicting deliberation time was wrong. But I don't think any of us expected seven days. So there was an enormous amount of evidence in this case, hundreds of exhibits, weeks and weeks

of testimony, complicated medical and psychiatric evidence, and obviously an incredibly serious decision in front of them, right? So when they went back home that first night without a verdict, I don't think any of us, anybody was particularly surprised, right? Okay. Then Friday came and then Friday went. And we're like, wow, we're going to hit Monday again. And then there was still no verdict on Monday. And I'll admit, that's a lot. And I'll admit, that's when I really started to get nervous. I'm like, okay, okay. Because by that point, most people had followed this case from the beginning, had already formed their own opinion about what they thought the verdict should be for this trial that divided so many. You had people

who were absolutely convinced that Lindsay was guilty, people who were absolutely convinced that she was legally insane, were not criminally responsible, as Massachusetts law explains it, and very little middle ground. So, when the deliberations just kept going and going, it started to feel like maybe the jury was genuinely split and they were budging. And then early Tuesday morning, we got our first real indication

that they were truly at an impasse. The judge received a note from the jury saying that they were having trouble reaching an unanimous verdict. Judge Sullivan essentially told them, keep going. Keep deliberating, jury. Keep discussing the evidence. keep trying to reach a unanimous decision, a unanimous verdict.

That's exactly what they did until Wednesday, because Wednesday brought another note from the jury. And, you know, we were all made aware of it. We were kind of watching. We're like, okay, this is it. There might be, who knows. But this time, we thought there might be a mistrial, right? This time, they said that after much deliberation,

they were still unable to reach that unanimous decision. Okay, we knew that. At that point, Judge Sullivan gave them what's called a Tui Rodriguez charge. Basically, this is an instruction a judge can give to a deadlocked jury, encouraging them to continue deliberating and reminding them that they have a duty to try to reach a unanimous verdict. It's not the judge telling them which way to vote. It's not the judge saying, come on, guys, somebody needs to change their mind.

I mean, although I'm sure some people felt pressure, right? It's more like, look, you've been given this responsibility. You've heard all the evidence. Seven weeks of evidence, guys, seven weeks of evidence, exhibits, testimony. You've discussed it at length. And before we give up and declare a mistrial, I want you to go back, continue talking to one another, reconsider the evidence and see if you can reach an unanimous decision. That definitely doesn't mean that jurors are supposed to surrender their honest beliefs. just because they're in the minority, right? That is not how democracy works.

They are supposed to listen to each other, reconsider their own positions, and try to reach a verdict if they can do so without violating their conscience or their understanding of the law. And so, after Judge Sullivan gave them that instruction, back into the jury room, they went. And then came Thursday. Then came Thursday, right? Now, I mean, wow. And this is where things got really interesting. The jury four person sent the judge another note.

And this time, it wasn't just a word deadlocked, because that's what we were all expecting again. Or I was. Maybe I should speak for myself, not all of you. I was expecting them to just say, hey, we're still deadlocked. Judge, what do you do? But instead, the four person said that one juror was refusing to follow the court's instruction regarding reasonable doubt.

The attorneys came into court for a sidebar discussion with Judge Sullivan. And we could see the sidebar discussion happening on live television. And reporters who were in, sorry, you could see, we could hear what was happening from reporters. Sorry, the reporters were seeing

what was happening inside the courtroom and relaying to all of us listening what was happening. And I was not there. And it was very clear from the reporters in the courtroom. that both sides were very upset by whatever was happening during that discussion. And we were hearing from reporters in that courtroom what was going on during that sidebar.

That Reddington seemed upset and the prosecution seemed okay. So what we learned at one point, Judge Sullivan handed Reddington some paperwork. Redington reportedly shoved the papers back and actually banged on the desk. Lindsay was also wheeled up to the sidebar to participate in the discussion. then the jurors were brought in one at a time. This is what we could see. The jurors were brought in. We couldn't see the jurors.

They were questioned at the sidebar. Each juror was questioned individually before being sent back into the jury room. And eventually, the entire panel was brought back into the courtroom. Some of what we could see, some of we couldn't. Judge Sullivan then went over the meaning of reasonable doubt again. And this is incredibly important because reasonable doubt was at the heart of this entire. case until this moment, right? The judge repeated that the Commonwealth had the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. And since Lindsay had raised the defense of insanity,

the Commonwealth also had the burden of proving that she was sane at the time she killed her children. So if the Commonwealth failed to prove that Lindsay was sane beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict had to be not guilty by reason of insanity or she was not found criminally responsible, according to Massachusetts law. That was the law they were required to follow, right? So after those instructions, the jury was sent back to deliberate again, but Redington was not happy. He approached the podium and talked to what the four persons note had actually said, that there was a single jury, just one, one juror, a juror, single juror, who was holding out and who, according to the other jurors, quote, refused to listen to the law.

Reddington was furious. And you can imagine Reddington furious. He argued that just asking the juror whether he could follow the law wasn't enough. He essentially told Judge Sullivan, if this person is openly refusing to follow your instructions about reasonable doubt, then what exactly are we doing here? All right. Thank you, women.

I appreciate that. I appreciate the fact, Your Honor, that you're allowing us to be heard in public rather than at the sidebar. The juror, the court has an instruction from the foreperson of that juror that's been working for a week now saying that there's one juror

who refuses to listen to the law that you've given him or her on reasonable doubt. And I suggest respectfully that the soft instruction that you gave them saying at the sidebar, can you listen to the law as I instruct you, does not focus on the issue. It is the question is not sufficient enough. It does not allow any foundation for a motion to remove the juror who refuses to accept your

instructions on the law, on reasonable doubt. And if we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court. It's a shame. It's a real shame. And that's why I object to the court's rolling. I request that we have further inquiry. I request that my motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt.

Come on. Thank you, Your Honor. We have the note from the jury. There's no way to determine what the deliberations are, who's correct, who's incorrect, nor should we attempt to, because that's part of deliberations. I think what Your Honor has done by asking each juror if they're able to follow the law and then giving a general instruction on reasonable doubt is appropriate under Commonwealth v. Ralph, so we do not have an objection to the questions or the re-instruction.

All right. Well, I'm sure as parties understand, as they say, the discharge of a deliberating juror is a sensitive undertaking. I was just specifically responding to the specific question that was asked. I don't feel that it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations. I don't feel it's appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or the 11. At this point, I've asked if they are able to follow my instructions of courting. They swore earlier that they could. They've said, at this point that they can, that was specifically addressed towards the specific question.

And that's what I'm doing. So the defendant's objection is noted. And we will be in recess on this at this time. Thank you. So, Reddington, of course, of course asked Judge Sullivan to remove that juror and replace him with one of the alternate jurors. This is why we have alternate jurors, right? The jurors were chosen and then alternate jurors were also chosen to stand by just in case the jury needed them. In my opinion, that makes sense.

That's what they're there for. But the prosecution disagreed. Surprise, surprise. Attorney Sprague argued that the jurors had already been questioned about whether they were capable of following the law and they had indicated that they could follow the law. Then the judge gave his response to this request as we just listened to you. So when Reddington left the courthouse Thursday, he told reporters that he planned to request an inquiry of the identified juror on Friday morning. So the juror has been identified by the note from the foreper. And there will be an inquiry by the judge tomorrow at 9 o'clock.

I don't know what his question is going to be. We'll have an argument about it. I don't think it will be at the sidebar. I think it will be an open court, which is my concern that we have our arguments. open not at the sidebar. So I expect that, and that's VAR, not VAAH, okay? Is this one person versus all the rest? Is this one person versus all the rest of the jury? Is it one person holding this up? Yeah, that's, you heard the question. That's basically that there's a

person who has doubt, but will not listen to the judge's instruction. Yeah. Has everybody else agreed? Do we, do we know where every, are you like the, the only guy? No, I'm just a loud about I'm from my last question I'll be quiet. Is the one per, is, did they tell you that all the rest of the jurors are going one way at the other? Do they tell you that? They don't tell me anything.

It's just a note. So for a lot of us, Thursday was really starting to feel like the end of the road. Because by that point, Judge Sullivan had already given the jury, the Tuwey Rodriguez instruction. They had been told to go back and try again. And if they came back Friday and said, we're still deadlocked, The expectation was that Judge Sullivan would have to declare a mistrial. And there was already a request to put an alternate in. There were already concerns for the jurors, and we learned that it was one juror.

And that's what brought us to Friday to today. And I know a lot of people, including myself, were hoping for something specific, very specific. Not that the other jurors, again, I want to be clear, not that the other jurors would somehow bully this one person. into changing his mind. And we knew it was a man. We learned it was a man to, which were, they were in the minority in that deliberating room, majority of females. The one that was staying, you know, the one hold jury juror was a man. So I didn't, you know, it's not like no one's asking the other jurors to bully this one person to change their mind. That is not how this is supposed to work. But hoping that maybe, just maybe something about the law of reasonable doubt

would click, right? Reasonable doubt is what matters here. That maybe this juror would listen to the judge's instructions, right? Go back through the evidence and understand what the Commonwealth actually had to prove. Follow the law. So for those of us who came away from this trial believing that Lindsay was experiencing postpartum psychosis and that the evidence supported a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity or innocent because she is not criminally responsible, there was still hope. Maybe they'd get there. Maybe after seven days, you know, which equals, you know, seven weeks of evidence, seven days of deliberating. Maybe that seven days is what we needed that, that number seven, that the jury would finally reach a unanimous decision. But as

as we know, that didn't happen. So on Friday morning, everyone's frustrations really started boiling over. The very first thing Reddington asked for was exactly what he had said he wanted the day before. He wanted Judge Sullivan to individually question the holdout juror. I think that's completely fair. But Reddington then took it a step further. He accused that juror, that holdout juror of actually lying under oath when he was previously questioned by the judge. According to Reddington, the juror had acknowledged that there was reasonable doubt, but was refusing to apply that doubt to the verdict the way the law requires. And Reddington was not mincing words.

He said that the juror had stood in front of the judge, Judge Sullivan, looked him directly in the eye and that he had lied. Thank you very much, Your Honor. I appreciate the opportunity to argue this to you. A couple of points that occur to me. First of all, as runners well aware, a defendant, any defendant in this courtroom or any courtroom in our country is entitled to have a juror who is true to their oath, who will agree that they will apply the facts as they determine them to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the law. law as given to them by you as a judge or any other judge. If a jury consists of people and there's one person who is refusing to actually apply the law

to the facts as determined for reasons that are not arising out of the case, but are personal to the jurors' position regarding their review. view of their oath and how they should apply their oath. In other words, if it's personal to this individual, which I believe it is, based on the first question that you had. And I have never seen a situation like this where a foreperson on the jury is so courageous as to speak on behalf of 11 jurors. and indicate that juror number, which I will not mention, and I quote, has made statements acknowledging doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states.

Clearly, Judge, we have a person who under their oath stood in front of you yesterday when you did the individual voir dire and And according to this information, under oath, looked you and me I and lied. That juror told you that he would be able to apply the law to the facts as you asked them. And based on this note from this juror, it clearly and unequivocally indicates that it clearly 11 to 1, and this person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not guilty verdict. I would ask that the court would, and I know it's awkward, I'm familiar with the law.

I know that we try to protect and preserve the sanctity, if you will, of the jury. We don't want to invade their deliberations. We want to keep that private. Obviously, that's a good thing to do. But when you have a situation, where you have not one but two notes that clearly indicates that this individual has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict he is as the law states he is not being honest with you at the sidebar i would go so far as to reluctantly say that the individual has made a false

statement under oath to this court there has to have to to be an issue that is not arising out of deliberations in the facts of this case, but the individual is refusing to apply your instructions on proof beyond a reasonable doubt to allow that jury to return a verdict of not guilty. I just wanted to put on the record that the note does not indicate that this juror lied to your honor when responding. The note indicates that the parties disagree. on what is reasonable doubt or what doubt is and how it should be applied. And we are in no position to judge if the 11 are right or the one is right.

But there's no indication that the juror is intentionally trying to mislead the court or lie to the court. All right. Thank you. Is all three counsel are aware, the case law spells out kind of the concerns that everybody has in a situation like this. where it says the discharge of a deliberating juror is sensitive undertaking, fraught with potential error. It's to be done only in special circumstances with special precautions. A judge must take the utmost cost

to avoid invading the province of the jury. That's what I'm concerned with in this, at this point. And as even under the statute, during deliberations, a juror properly may be discharged only for reasons personal to that juror, having nothing whatsoever to do, nothing whatever, I'm sorry, to do with the issues of the case or with the juror's relationship with their fellow jurors.

In this case here, I see no showing of the need for an inquiry of this particular juror. The note that we were referring to the one from late yesterday afternoon indicates that the juror has, says, acknowledged doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict. Well, the instruction that the SJC has suggested we give in regards to reasonable doubt and that both parties agreed to says that reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt.

And so in reading that note carefully and strictly in the way that I have to, before I possibly invade the province of the jury. That note does not indicate that this is a person who has refused to follow the law. And in addition, as the parties recognized, yesterday we brought all the jurors, and including the juror who is at issue here, and we asked, I asked, whether or not those jurors could follow the instructions, including the instruction I just referred to. And all the jurors indicated that they could.

This is not a case that there's any indication that the juror has refused to deliberate or has any reason has indicated that they would not follow the law or that they're physically suffering or there's no note from the juror that indicates that the juror cannot or will not be able to continue deliberating as some of the other cases talk about. So for reasons for that, I'm not going to do a further inquiry of this juror over the defendant's objection. And at that point, my inclination would be to bring the jury back. My thought would be, though, to remind them that it's their duty to accept the law as I give it to them and that they have to follow that law. I think this is what I told them a week ago.

They have to follow it whether they like it or not. So I'm going to give them that instruction and remind them of that. So with that I was just going to ask that the court also instruct the jurors or remind them that any future notes should not contain information about deliberation. Well, here's what I was going to say

if there's any notes or any future notes, if there are any, you should refrain from detailing any of the actual deliberations and do not indicate where they stand numerically. A couple of things. First of all, one of acknowledges that I have an objection to

I appreciate and I do have an objection and I am again citing article 12, Sixth Amendment, the United States Constitution. This is this goes beyond Massachusetts law. This is constitutional. It's it's a structural, I suggest respectfully defect in the procedure that we're engaged in. We're elevating form over substance and that's your honor's ruling. I understand of objected, but I would ask that you not instruct the jury that they cannot indicate anything. And I understand why traditionally we tell jurors, don't let us know

what your division is or what your split is. But in this case, I'm concerned that if you do that, that four person is going to feel that that is some type of that she violated something and might feel that your honor is kind of coming down on her and not to do that. And I think it's too delicate right now a situation. And in addition, and finally, I would ask that you not just give them, as I described it yesterday, a soft inquiry where you listen to my instructions.

I would ask that you specifically direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and re-instruct them on that forcefully. I think I did it yesterday, you did it yesterday, you did it soft, you didn't do it forcefully, and I'm asking me to do it. What do you want me to do? get a brass band. I read the instruction as written by the SJC. The fact that I perhaps didn't give it

my full inflection, I'm sorry about that. I'm not an actor. I've just given the instructions. Well, my point, Judge, simply, is that you're kind of glossing over the issue. The issue is

this juror will not, according to that note, applied the law of reasonable doubt. And that's why I've requested, you know what I've requested. Right. So I know my objection. But just in case the record's clear, I am specifically not glossing over this issue. I have thought about this issue long and hard.

I know the defendant of Jacks, but the characterization that I'm glossing over it, trust me, that's not the situation. I've been thinking about this for quite a while. So that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to just give that instruction, as I said, that they have to follow my instructions. I'm not going to reiterate the reasonable doubt at this point. It may come to that again as we go through it. And I'll try and give this with more pizzazz than I gave yesterday, I suppose.

But so with that, we'll bring the jury back in. And I'll ask the questions. I'll give those kind of that instruction and we'll send them back out. So now, the judge was not going to remove the juror, but he did send them back in for deliberations one more time and he gave them very direct instructions. You must follow the law.

As I give it to you, whether you, you agree with it or not, end quote. And then back into the jury room, they went again. At this point, the jury had been deliberating for nearly 40 hours. Can you imagine that, by the way? Just imagine being in a room with strangers for nearly 40 hours. I guess they do reality shows based on that type of thing. So 40 hours deliberating together. And eventually another note came. The four person told the judge that with a heavy heart, they were still unable to reach a unanimous verdict. Judge Solubil, said, quote, under the statute and the case law, I don't feel I have any choice but to declare a mistrial, end quote. And you would think, okay, that's it. Seven days of deliberations,

no verdict, mistrial. But Reddington wasn't having it. He still was not ready to let it end there. Attorney Raington. Your Honor, my understanding is that this court has the discretion to have the jury sent back for the second time. The first time that there was a report, we did not treat it as a report of deadlock. We did not instruct them under Tewy. We did not give them soft Tewy. We didn't give them anything.

We just sent them back to deliberate. So technically we have one report of deadlock that Your Honor gave the Tuy Rodriguez charge to, I believe under the statute, as well as the case law, this court has the ability to send the jury back. The fact that that jury four person wrote very unusually with a heavy heart that we are unable to come to a decision. Based on the earlier questions that we have, I think it would be a sound and a wise decision for this court to send it back under the law. Well, I would find that under case law,

Matt's case law and statutory law, the jury did not ask to be sent back, which would be a possibility if they had requested it to be sent back to them. But under the statute and the case law, I don't feel I have a choice but to declare this trial. Well, before you do, I'd like to be heard, Your Honor. Well, that's why I ask you. before but go ahead well I just got to the first way and get to the other one

I go right your honor I would suggest to the court that as we are pretty much all familiar with under Karen Reed versus the Commonwealth the Supreme Judicial Court through Justice George's back in February of 25 held that under rule 27 B of the Massachusetts rules of criminal procedure quote gives a trial judge discretion to require a jury to return a verdict for charges on which they have agreed before declaring a mistrial. As it relates to, and again, I continue quote, judge may first require the jury to return verdicts on those charges upon which the jury can agree and direct that such verdicts be received

and recorded. Those on further and I quote rule 27d also permits the judge to poll the jury when a verdict is returned. and before the verdict is recorded. However, a judge is not required to accept a partial verdict before declaring a mistrial. So I'm asking that the court would entertain the jurors as to whether or not there has been a decision on murder one, murder two, manslaughter, anything like that.

And if that's the case, then I certainly would argue that double jeopardy is attached and those judges cannot be prosecuted again. All right. Well, the prosecution, of course, subjected, they argued that questioning the jurors about what they had agreed upon would improperly get into the substance of their private deliberations. And they also argued that the circumstances here were different from the Karen Reed case. And ultimately, Judge Sullivan wasn't persuaded.

He said, quote, over the defendant's objection, I'm going to declare a mistrial at this point. And just like that, technically, the trial was over. Dot, dot, dot, dot, except. Reddington still had one more card to play. And this was basically a legal Hail Mary. Redington asked the judge for a time to seek emergency intervention from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. He called what had happened a travesty and said he wanted to take the issue involving the holdout juror directly to the state's highest court. We've just joined us. Forgive me for a redoubt issue. I would ask for you formally declare a mistrial that the court,

that the court afford us the opportunity to take a 2 113 appeal direct to the Supreme Judice for court single justice on this issue because of any number of issues that are of concern others that have been addressed in the motions the objections but I further raised the issue of the American with disabilities act I believe that this is a situation where there is a clear and present danger that this individual for some reason what it is we don't know but is is taking a position that's intractable regardless of proof beyond a reason so I want an opportunity to take an appeal to the single justice if the court

would have that opportunity how much time do you need to do that I'd have it filed today and argue tomorrow Saturday they would do it on an emergency yeah I I mean, I can try. So we're going to tell this jury to come back tomorrow? I'm just trying to, I don't care. The reason I'm asking it, I know, but as they're walking in, you're asking for this. I'm just trying to find out what it is that you're asking for. What I'm asking for is time to file a single justice appeal for this travesty.

That's what I'm asking for. So you're asking for an emergency stay at this point? Yes. And the jurors don't have to come. come back tomorrow. They can be to come back if I lose the motion. But if I win the motion, then obviously they would have to come back

Tuesday. If you want to go up and petition to the SDC for a stay, I'll give you an hour before we bring the jury back down. I think you could it's just a request for the

stay of the declaration of the mistrial. So I'll hold off for an hour. And then we'll come back in in regards to that. My gosh. So court was then recessed until 2 o'clock. And during that break, Lindsay's attorneys filed their emergency petition right on the hour. Now, this is where the legal stuff gets a little more complicated. So let's go over this together. The petition was filed under Chapter 211, Section 3 of Massachusetts law. Basically, this is an extraordinary mechanism

that allows a single justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to step in and review something happening in a lower court before the normal appeal process plays out. It's not something you just file because you're unhappy with the judge's ruling. It's generally reserved for unusual or extraordinary circumstances where waiting for the normal appeals process could mean the issue can't be effectively fixed later. And so that's exactly what Reddington was trying to argue here. The defense asked the SJC to order to. at Sullivan to further question the holdout juror.

All right. So, ultimately, he wanted the juror barred from participating in any future deliberations unless Sullivan first determined through individual questioning that the juror was actually willing and able to follow the court's instructions. Again, I don't know. I think it's fair. But the defense was relying heavily on that four-person's description of the juror. Remember, the foreperson had reportedly said that the juror had, quote, acknowledged doubt

but was refusing to apply that doubt to the case as the law states. That distinction is incredibly important to the defense because they're not arguing that the juror just disagreed with them. The foreperson, they're arguing that this wasn't just a disagreement over the evidence. They're saying that the juror may have refused to apply the law itself. That's what the defense is concerned was this whole time. So we're going to read some things together here. The defense went even further in the emergency filing. They raised concerns that the juror may have been biased against people with mental illness.

I mean, that's significant because Lindsay's entire defense centered around her mental state and whether she was criminally responsible for what she did. The defense argued that Lindsay was entitled to an impartial jury and that if there was evidence suggesting a juror was unable or unwilling to fairly consider mental illness evidence, that raised a constitutional issue. They also pushed back against the idea that the judge could not investigate the alleged misconduct simply because it came from inside the jury room. Normally, jury deliberations are extremely protected, right? We don't get to peek inside the jury room and find out who said what,

what arguments were made and how individual jurors voted. I mean, sometimes we're lucky we get an interview after, but that's, you know, we don't know. And it's intentional that we don't know what's going on. The defense argued that this situation, though, was different. This was not not peeking into the jury room, they said, according to the defense in Reddington, that the court should not just ignore potential juror misconduct because the information happened to arise during deliberations. And they accused Judd Sullivan of failing to do his job by refusing to determine whether this juror was actually capable of fairly applying the law.

So I want to read the actual filing, actually. And yeah, I have to put reading glasses on these days. And some of you think it look like Harry Potter, but hey, at least it's It's not a bow. So let's read the filing. Pursuant to the Massachusetts general laws. The petitioner, Lindsay Clancy, here asks this court to exercise its superintendent's power. The petitioner asks the court to issue an order in the nature of for the Plymouth Superior Court to fulfill its non-discretionary duty to preserve the integrity of the criminal jury. Specifically, a petitioner asks this court to order the Plymouth County Superior Court, currently in session to either inquire into the ability of the identified juror to apply the law

or prohibit the further deliberations of the juror identified by the jury for a person as biased and refusing to follow the court's instruction on reasonable doubt unless and tell the court determines by individual idea meaning individual questioning of all the jurors that the juror is willing and able to follow the court's instructions facts this is a first-degree murder case in which the defendant has raised an NGI defense. The four person has sent a note to the judge indicating that one of the jurors has acknowledged doubt but is refusing to apply it to the case as the law states. And that's in quote, that's in quotes, as the law states.

Well, we don't know the exact wording of the note. We know that it says as the law states. The defendant has requested that the court either excused the juror who is allegedly refusing to follow instructions or inquire further to determine whether the juror can, in fact, to follow instructions. The court has declined either to excuse the juror or to inquire further, citing deliberative privilege. So the argument. Number one, the court's refusal to consider evidence that a juror is refusing to follow the applicable law regarding criminal responsibility should be corrected promptly to preserve the integrity of the court system. Under Massachusetts law,

a juror's refusal to follow the law is always personal and not a matter of protected deliberative privilege and requires removal. Here, the removal is particularly important because the jurors' reasonable reasoning reflects a bias against those who suffer from debilitating mental illness, a protected category under both the 5th and 14th Amendments and Article 114 of the Massachusetts Constitution. This court has general superintendents of all court of inferior jurisdiction to correct and prevent errors and abuses therein if no other remedy is expressly provided, and it may issue all writs and processes to such courts, to corporations and individuals which may be necessary to the furtherance of justice and to the regular execution of the laws. So in general,

this court may not step in unless no other remedy is expressly provided. However, the court may also intervene regardless of available remedies, where it is necessary or desirable for the furtherance of justice, the regular execution of the laws, the improvement of the administration of such courts, securing of their proper and efficient administration. Intervention is necessary in this case to avoid in avoidable mistrial of a case that is so time and labor intensive and that has captured so much public attention. It is also necessary to preserve the defendant's right to a fair trial by unbiased jurors applying the law and to avoid violating the equal protection clause of the Fifth and 14th Amendments and Articles 114, which make mental illness a protected category. A criminal defendant is entitled

to a trial by an impartial jury pursuant to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. This court has long held that the presence of even one juror who is not impartial violates a defendant's right to trial by an impartial jury. The possibility that unconstitutional bias as infected jury deliberations cannot be ignored because it might well offend fundamental fairness. The right to the right to, To be tried by an impartial jury is basic to a fair trial. And errors that undermine the right to an impartial jury are structural errors. For example, whenever a defendant has been subject to racial or ethnic bias in jury deliberations,

he has not received a fair trial and thus structural error applies. It is fundamental, a fundamental tenant of our system of justice that a conviction cannot stand if the defendant proves that the jury's deliberations were infected by racial or ethnic bias, end quote. concerns about bias extend beyond any single case such a bias in the context of race has been observed to pose a substantial risk of miscarriage of justice but also if left unaddressed would risk systematic injury to the administration of justice racial and ethnic bias implicated unique historical constitutional and institutional concerns in quote in cases where juror racial and or ethnic bias is alleged the juror must determine whether the defendant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the offending juror was actually biased because of the defendant's race or ethnicity. Considering the content of the statement in context, the same considerations apply here in the context of mental illness. Number two, the Superior Court has abdicated its responsibility to ensure the integrity of the jury by refusing either to inquire

further or to dismiss the juror who is refusing to consider doubt as the law states. The judge needs not simply accept the jurors' professions of fidelity and impartiality. The judge is entitled to make credibility determinations and discredit the juror's answers in light of the other jurors' statements. The judge appears to be abdicating the responsibility to wait, the evidence of juror, how do you say that word? I'm going to skip it. Malthusians. Did I say it right, guys? The evidence of juror Malthusians. I was doing so well with the legalese, but I got stuck. All right. In other words, this is not abuse of discretion. It is a failure to exercise discretion at all. The fact that this touches on deliberations does not make the subject off limits. Once the jury has chosen to reveal information, quote, that information cannot be ignored, end quote. The judge, a new quote, quote, the judge, having ventured into the forbidden area of the deliberative process, cannot ignore the fruits of excursion, end quote. It is error not to inquire where the court is uncertain. of the meaning of the four persons comment, a mistrial at this point is entirely avoidable,

but only if the court does its job for the reasons stated above. The petition or complaint for this should be allowed. So their conclusion was pretty blunt. In other words, and he pulled that off at an hour. So go Reddington. Right on the dot, an hour, boom. That's his hour. So their conclusion, pretty blunt, obviously. A mistrial at this point, quote, a mistrial at this point is entirely avoidable, but only if the court does its job, end quote. So that's where we were earlier today, Friday. Suddenly, this wasn't just about whether Lindsay Clancy would get a verdict. It was about whether the alleged conduct of one juror had effectively brought an entire trial to a screeching halt. After years of investigation, months of proceedings,

weeks of testimony, seven days of deliberations, and an absolutely staggering amount of public money in resources. And now the SJC even, they had to decide whether it was going to intervene. Take a listen. Your Honor. So on August 27th, the jury was sent out after closing arguments and instruction. On September 1st, they sent in a note saying that they were deadlocked. Judge Sullivan brought them back into the courtroom, advised them to keep deliberating, and they were sent out again. the following day on September 7th. I'm going to ask you to slow down because I can't listen as fast as you can talk. I apologize.

On September 1st, a note from the jury indicating they were deadlocked. That same day, Judge Sullivan asked them to keep deliberating. And sent them out again to deliberate. The next day on September 2nd, they again sent out a note saying that they were deadlocked. Okay. After receiving that note, the judge brought the jurors back into the courtroom and gave them the Tui Rodriguez instruction. Okay. The next day, September 3rd, they sent in a note stating,

a member of the jury is unable to follow the instructions regarding reasonable doubt. How should we proceed? Judge Sullivan brought each juror duly for an inquiry. individual voir dire and ask them. So the note said a member of the jury is not able to follow the instructions on reasonable doubt. Okay. And said how should we proceed? So then Judge Sullivan brought them in for individual voir dire asking each individual juror if they were able, still able to follow his instructions.

Each juror answered in the affirmative that they were. the judge credited those answers and then brought the entire jury back into the courtroom together and reinstructed on reasonable doubt later that was on September 3rd correct okay later that day and then later that day sorry that's okay that later that day they sent an instruction they sent another note this one identified the juror so I I won't give the juror number, but it says that the juror has made statements acknowledging doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states. This is why we cannot come to a unanimous decision.

Okay. And then after receiving that note, the judge sent the jurors home for the day. That brings us to today, September 4th, this morning, the judge Sullivan, sent the jurors out again to deliberate and advised them or instructed them not to include any vote counts or things like that and into any further questions that they had. They left the courtroom and deliberated for several hours and then returned a note stating that they were still deadlocked and they would not be able to reach a verdict it based on their current state.

One thing I did forget to mention that this morning prior to sending out the jurors, Judge Sullivan instructed them that they are required to follow his instructions on the law, whether they agree with them or not. So after instructing them on that, he sent them out. They were out for a few hours, and then they returned that final note, stating that they were deadlocked and would not be able to reach a verdict. Okay. And I'm sorry.

After he sent them out, he instructed them to not include something? Oh, that this morning, yes. So he instructed them not to include any information and any questions they may have about their deliberation or their account. you know, what the numbers are, were in terms of guilty, not guilty. That's not an exact quote, but that was the content of what he told them this morning. And then at the same time, he also instructed them to follow the law, whether they agreed with it or not. Okay. Thank you for that timeline.

Attorney Reddington, this is your motion. I don't know if it's you or Attorney Goldblatt who will be speaking, but I will give you the opportunity now to address the specific issue of this particular timeline. Thank you, Your Honor. I will defer to Attorney Goldblatt on this. Thank you, Judge. Justice, I would just add that This morning on the fourth, when before the judge gave the instruction to follow all his instructions, Attorney Reddington on behalf of Ms. Clancy asked that the judge inquire of the jury individually through voir dire to determine whether this juror was following instructions.

And the judge declined to do that. So that was when this petition was filed based on that. It was filed before the jury sent in their second, I guess their third notice of deadlock. So there's an intervening, the attorney Redington requested an individual voir dire of the jurors. That request was denied. I filed this motion, the petition. with Attorney Reddington.

And then the jury came back after, sometime after I filed it, the jury came back saying they were in fact deadlocked. The goal was to avoid a mistrial by filing this and getting superintendents. I'm sorry, you filed this at 1229. And 1229, although I don't see that, but I defer to you. Okay, and then afterwards, just like in the last hour, the jury came back with their final note. At some point, I think it was after the file.

I don't know because I was writing the filing, but when I sent in the filing, the jury had not come back with the final note. And therefore, you will not see that in the fact pattern. I don't know whether maybe the final note actually came back while I was writing the petition. But it came back. And so you won't see the mention of that final note in the facts of the petition. because when I was writing it, it either hadn't happened yet or I didn't know about it because I'm in a different room than Attorney Redington while I'm writing this. I appreciate that.

Okay. So in addition to what's in the emergency request for relief, is there any other argument that you have for me? No additional arguments, Judge. I'm available to obviously answer questions or to clarify. I think you're frozen. I can hear you, though. Can you hear me? So we're back.

Yeah. So I asked if you had additional argument and then either I froze or you froze. No additional argument. It's what's in the brief. It's the two arguments that are there. I think, and in general I would just frame it really brief, like one sentence as I don't think there's a lot of doubt that this was error. The question is under what authority, if any, can the SJC intervene? And those are the two areas where I tried to outline it in the undersection.

211, 3, and as a complaint for mandamus. So those were my two, those are the two areas I'm trying to argue to the court to help the court. Okay. Attorney Sprague, do you have a response? Yes, Your Honor. Just a slight dispute in the timeline. The juror came back with the note saying they were deadlocked prior to 1230.

Okay. If this was filed at 1230, and at that time, Judge Sullivan stated that he was going to declare a mistrial after argument. by counsel. At that time, Attorney Reddington did ask for an individual voir dire. Again, that was denied based on the wrong key case and that case line. Then Attorney Redington stated that he was going to seek review of declaring a mistrial. So that's what I thought this was about, but I did, we did receive the petition and we understand now that it's not based on the judge's authority to declare a mistrial, but rather on the four-dare issue, which I think based on the timeline and the case law, this is covered under Commonwealth v. Ronkei 491 Mass 284 from 2023,

where we have nothing in these notes or anything from the deliberating jurors that indicate a lack of impartiality, bias, extraneous influence or inability to deliberate regarding this one juror. What we seem to have is a dispute amongst the deliberation deliberating jurors as to how to apply the law, but that's their deliberation and which the judge, I think, correctly decided not to inquire into. And by questioning the jurors the prior day about whether they could follow the instructions and all of them saying yes and him, the judge Sullivan credited. those statements, I think that it's a judicial discretion issue, and Judge Sullivan has discretion to not conduct the voir dire and to issue a mistrial. Okay. Unless Attorney Globet, you have something else to say, I will take the matter under advisement. Thank you. I do. Thank you for that.

The statement that this was not, that this is just about deliberations or about a disagreement, I think is entirely refuted by the substance of the note in which the jurors report not, we disagree about conclusions. But this one juror is refusing to apply doubt as the law states. So the refusal to apply something as the law states is different than a problem with deliberation. So the juror is acknowledging some kind of doubt and then refusing to follow the instruction about it. And that is what, which is, I think, when they refer to refusing to follow the instruction, they just refer to it as fusing to follow what the law states. So this note that says, I'm not going to follow, this juror won't. follow what the law states. I just want to clarify that that's different than we disagree about

what constitutes reasonable or something like that, that there is a clear statement that this one juror is not following what the law states. And because of that, there is not discretion for the court to just let this continue. And that's where I think the issue comes in for the SJC's ability to issue an order either under its general superintendent's powers to preserve the integrity of the petty jury or of just the mandamus requiring the court to exercise this discretion, which requires at this point an inquiry or I think I understand your argument. Although it was quick papers, it was good papers. And I understand the distinction that you're making.

And at this point, I think I need to make a decision. So I will leave you, make that decision, and thank you very much for quickly getting on this call. Thank you. So the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ultimately denied Lindsay's emergency request for relief, the temporary stay that had been keeping the mistrial from being finalized was lifted, and after that, Judge William Sullivan officially declared the mistrial officially.

Right. Counsel, it's my understanding that the SJC issued there or that the emergency request for relief was denied and the temporary stay is lifted. And so it would be my intention at this time to call the jurors back in. And as I indicated to you before, to declare mistrial. I understand, Your Honor. And at the risk of incurring the wrath of the court, I'd like to raise an additional issue just for purposes of the federal law, because this, I believe, constitutes a violation of the United States Constitution and federal issue.

that circuit, which is the first circuit, when a jury reports through a foreperson that amid deliberation that a juror refuses to follow the law, the issue is handled under federal rules of criminal procedure 23B, but the law itself that we're dealing with clearly indicates that a judge has the authority to excuse a deliberating juror for, quote, good cause, end quote, and allow the remaining 11 jurors to return a valid verdict and or with the substitution of one of the jurors that have been waiting, obviously, as alternates. While the First Circuit acknowledges that a juror's refusal to follow the law or instructions, constitutes good cause for dismissal that does in prose procedural issues as to how the court would navigate, which would require a hearing.

The core standard is United States versus Sepulveda, SEP, UL, E, D-A, First Circuit, 1993. And in that case, Your Honor, which is significant precedent, the First Circuit addressed the underlying concept of nullification where a juror refuses to follow the court's instructions. And in the Sepulveda case, the court held that while jurors possess a raw power to acquit for any reason. They have a significant duty,

and their duty requires them to apply the law as given to them by the court. If a juror abdicates this duty, it triggers the court's authority to intervene. And the court would then have a procedure where you would inquire, just like a hearing like we were suggesting that the court should have a hearing. So I would suggest, Your Honor, that clearly under the First Circuit law, federal law, as well as the argument to the court, Massachusetts law, that we have a juror who has, according to the four-person, is the only person who is basically holding out, so to speak. And unfortunately, they're not holding out based on a good faith issue with the facts or with the law, but they're holding out as a result.

That even though they have agreed and expressed doubt, they are refusing to apply the law as you've given it. So I would ask again that you conduct a hearing and understand that you're probably going to deny that. Seven weeks of testimony, seven days of deliberation, nearly 40 hours of the jury trying to reach a unanimous decision and ultimately no verdict, a mistrial. Judge Sullivan formally thanked and then discharged the jury. He told them that they should be proud of the work they had done and asked them to remain in the courtroom briefly so he could personally thank them before they left. And then outside the courthouse, we got the reaction from Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz. And this is where I'm going to be honest about my feelings. And they are my feelings only. This is a place where we all agree to disagree.

But people have been asking, you know, we've been reporting on this trial day in and day out. I spent the first two weeks there in the courtroom. And I have some feelings. So we'll talk about it. But first, take a lesson. Good afternoon. My name's Tim Cruz. I'm the Plummouth County District Attorney.

I'm here today with Assistant DA Shannon Buckingham and Assistant DA Jen Sprague. I'm going to have a statement for you. Then I will answer some questions after. I do know that one of the questions that are out here right now regarding retrials, I will let you know that there will be no decisions made today regarding that. I'm going to be meeting with our team, and we will address this case further at the appropriate time in the context of an official court proceeding. So you're not getting an answer on that question today. Today, however, I want to just say I appreciate the hard work of the jury in this case.

The jury obviously worked incredibly hard, stayed with that case for six and a half days. And that truly is people who understand the word of service as to what they did for our community. and I am grateful for that as we all should be. But in the end, I understand that this has been an emotional trial for everybody. It's emotional for the Duxbury community. It's even emotional for you members of the media. But in the end, I bring it all back to the child victims in this case. Cora, Dawson, and Callan, this was and it has always been

about getting justice for those three. little babies. We're here at this courthouse today because those children are not. One of our many roles as prosecutors is seeking justice and giving voice to those who are tragically taken from us. And one of our parts in this proceeding is to speak for the victims who are no longer here. And that is one of our most important functions. Our priority has always been to fight for Cora, for Dawson, and for Callan. The noise in this case may be louder than it is for other prosecutions in our county, but we have treated it the same as any other case.

Children were murdered, and it's our job to seek justice. I appreciate the fact that there are strong feelings and opinions tied to this case, However, our job is to set aside our feelings and focus solely on the facts. The facts are Lindsay Clancy killed her three children and the evidence suggested to us that she was in control of her actions when she committed those homicides. Our court system is built to weigh our views with those of the defense counsel and bear out whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. We did our pot and I'm proud of the part of the work we did in this prosecution. because this case is not about a health care system or about how women are treated in it or what's diagnosis there are in the DSM or what there are not.

Those are all important issues. They stir up emotion and sometimes they stir up anger. This case, however, was about Lindsay Clancy and what she did on January 24, 2023, and the cruel and calculated killing of three innocents. I understand that postpartum depression has impacted the lives of countless women and their families, and I sympathize with their struggles. The investigation of these heinous killings, however, did not establish that they were caused by such suppression. And based upon that assessment, it was determined that the charges of first-degree murder were warranted and appropriate in these circumstances.

Notwithstanding the undeniably important and delicate issues raised in this case, we proceed accordingly and consistent with the evidence and the law. I have led the plaintiff's the A's office for a long time now, and I have never been swayed to act a certain way or make certain decisions based upon public sentiment. In this job, it is the facts ultimately decide how you act, not the opinions of observers several steps removed from our court proceedings. I would like to thank our prosecutors, Jen Sprague and Shannon Buckingham, who are both mothers themselves and went home to their families after each long day in court.

They embraced the most difficult trial assignment with utmost professionalism and always with the thoughts of Cora, Dawson, and Little Callan on their minds. I'm proud of the work about victim and his advocates who worked long and hard, Karen and Kelsey, and they lived and breathed with this case from the very beginning. Unfortunately, the way they were vilified and portrayed on social media is disgusting to me. Threats to them and their families, their addresses being posted. It's unfortunate that in today's society, potentially people at risk who are merely doing their jobs as prosecutors, professional women for the Commonwealth. And once again, I am proud of their professionalism under these very stressful and difficult times. I commend the Massachusetts State Police and the Duxbury Police in fire.

From the moment that 911 call, they performed a thorough and complete investigation, and this was probably one of the most difficult crime scenes any of them has been to. And yet they did their job to professionalism and integrity. This is a case about three children who died of violent and horrific death at the hands of the person who showed them the most. This isn't rumor or speculation. This isn't guesswork. You know, speaking generally, we live in a great country, and we have the best criminal justice system in the world, if you ask me.

And that's what you start today. You started over the course of the last few weeks. Prosecutors in defense, dealing in court, and ultimately having individuals make their determinations, jurors making their determinations. And the defendants that are charged with crimes in our country have an awful lot of rights. And you know what? They should. They should have the rights to set forth

in our United States Constitution and here in Massachusetts are a mass declaration of rights. They should have those. But also speaking in the world that we live today, and all too often, criminals are being treated

as victims and the real victims are invisible. It is our job to make sure that the victims are not invisible, to make sure that they're not forgotten, and to make sure that we stand for them in the way that we seek justice.

And that's what I think we've done in this case. As I said, this day of this trial has been really emotional for everybody. I am a father and a grandfather, and I cannot imagine the hell this entire family has lived through. I remind myself that this is and has been and always will be about getting justice and making sure that we do not forget Cora Dawson, a little count. So Cruz said that his office was not immediately deciding whether Lindsay would even be retried. That's interesting because when there's a mistrial, you naturally assume a retrial. But he did not immediately say that Lindsay would be retried.

He said that he planned to meet with his team and address the future of the case at the appropriate time and in the context of an official court proceeding. He also strongly defended the decision to prosecute Lindsay. He said the case has always been about getting. justice for Cora, Dawson, and Callan. And he said the facts are that Lindsay killed her three children and the evidence suggested them that she was in control of her actions at the time. He also pushed back against the idea that this prosecution was a referendum on postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis, or the broader failures of the mental health system. According to Cruz, D.A. Cruz, this case was about Lindsay Clancy in what she did on January 24th, 2023. He called it

the cruel and calculated killing of three innocents. And when a reporter challenged him about whether the prosecution had been insensitive, this was his response. Was what? Insensitive. Insensitive. Insensitive is killing three children.

Insensitive is ignoring those facts. We have an obligation to stand up for those people and seek justice and make sure the defendant gets justice and make sure they get justice. So if people can't understand that, I don't know how I can answer that question. Do you feel like you might have to move court houses? Move courthouses? I don't know.

I guess it's a short answer. I think this is pretty firing out, so I'm not sure where we could go. If you couldn't prove the case to these 11 jurors, what would a new jury, how could that make the difference? If you couldn't prove the case to these 11 jurors who apparently did not believe that you prove the case, how can you prove it to others? don't know what they believe and what they didn't believe. Our job is to assess the facts and apply them to the law and make sure that we can come up with what we can do, go for in a good faith fashion. And I think that we owe that to the people in our county and our community. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Look, listen, I understand that the DA's office believes in its case. I understand that they believe Lindsay was and is criminally responsible. She still is now charge with murder. But here we go, in my opinion, they're wrong. I heard the evidence. I heard everything. I listened. I sat in that courtroom for two weeks. I even heard the horrific 911 call that I will never, ever forget. Patrick screams, Lindsay going in and out of consciousness. I don't think, in my opinion, that the state proved beyond reasonable doubt that Lindsay is criminally responsible. Again, in my opinion, there is reasonable doubt. And I also don't agree with Cruz's characterization that this case somehow is not about postpartum mental health.

Of course, it's about what Lindsay did on January 24th. Of course, the killing of her three babies. It is absolutely about postpartum psychosis. You cannot separate the crime from the mental state of the woman who committed it. That's the entire question the jury was being asked to answer. Was Lindsay suffering from a severe psychiatric illness? Did that illness affect her ability to understand what she was doing? And was she legally responsible for her actions?

Those aren't just little questions. They're the heart of the insanity defense of her not being criminally responsible. And beyond the courtroom, I think this case is forced a much bigger conversation about the way we understand postpartum mental health. Women can experience devastating psychiatric symptoms after giving birth and postpartum psychosis is not just a mother being overwhelmed or struggling to adjust to a new baby. It can and does involve delusions, hallucinations, paranoia, confusion, and a complete break formality.

And when we're talking about a woman who was experiencing that kind of psychiatric crisis, the medical treatment she received beforehand is important. Again, doesn't erase what happened to Cora, Dawson, and Callan. But it's important to understand how we got there. And that's why I think it is unfair to frame any discussion of Lindsay's mental illness as though it somehow takes justice away from her children. Mental illness does not take away justice. It doesn't.

You can care deeply about these three children and stick. believe their mother was catastrophically mentally ill. You can believe what happened was horrific and still believe Lindsay should not be held criminally responsible for something she was not mentally capable of understanding in the way the law requires her to understand it. And that is where I struggle with the idea of simply saying, okay, let's do this whole thing again. Let's just replay this entire trial. It was seven weeks, guys, seven weeks. because maybe that's ultimately what has to happen, maybe legally, that's where this goes. But let's not pretend that a retrial is just a simple do-over and it's for these three children

because it means putting everyone through this again, not just Lindsay. You're going to put Patrick Clancy, the father, the morning father of these three babies through this again. you'll put his family through this again you will put him back on the stand you'll put his family back on the stand you'll put lindsay's family back on the stand lindsay's family another jury that would have to deliberate for seven weeks or sorry hear evidence for seven weeks and then deliberate for seven days so eight weeks total and lindsay herself yes would have to again look at the autopsy photos hear that 911 call again it means another trial where the public gets to dissect her mental health her medical records, her medications, her motherhood, and the worst day of her life, as well as

everyone who loved these children's life. The people that loved these children would have to be put back into that again, again and again. Let's not forget all the forensic psychologists on TikTok who are trying to say that Patrick is the murderer and killed his children, too. I can only imagine how absolutely difficult that was. And what I mean, forensic psychologist on TikTok, I'm literally meaning armchair, forensic psychologist. TikTok, TikTok, they were educated on TikTok. And Reddington certainly didn't hold back about the trial's outcome. Outside the courthouse, he went after the holdout juror saying the other jurors had been robbed by one man. He said, quote, they know that they were robbed by one man for whatever his

agenda was who stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurors, end quote. He praised the rest of the panel saying they had been attentive and carefully listened to the evidence throughout the trial, and he could see how defeated they looked when Judge Sullivan declared the mistrial. Can you imagine sacrificing eight weeks of your life, feeling strongly about something and then a mistrial? Reddington even said that he had the feeling those jurors would have continued deliberating for another week if they had been allowed to. They know that they were robbed by one man for whatever his agenda was

who stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurors that were so attentive, so beautiful, so wonderful, and listen to this evidence. And you could see how defeated they were sitting there. And I get a funny feeling that they would have gone on for another week

if they had to. So I hope that guy can sleep wrong. Kevin, what did you do differently during a retrop? This ultimately was not a jury that was evenly divided. This wasn't six people saying guilty and six saying not guilty. This was 11 jurors who believed the Commonwealth had not proven Lindsay's criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt and one juror who disagreed and look. Some people see this juror as a hero, someone that was a holdout who stood by what he believed, and that is democracy. Absolutely. But it is interesting that 11 other jurors saw reasonable doubt,

except for one. And now we don't know everything that happened inside that jury room. We were not there. We know what was communicated to the court and what the attorneys have said publicly, but if that characterization is accurate, the entire trial essentially came down to one person's, one person's interpretation of reasonable doubt. And that is a hell of a thing to sit with if you think about it. One man essentially, I mean, decided that entire trial, the mistrial, where Lindsay Clancy now still sits with murder charges, where that entire family had to testify the evidence, the jurors, and there's no verdict. Yeah, a hell of a thing to sit with. Reddington also went after DA Cruz, saying prosecutors had been crushed by the 11-1 split.

Obviously, this is not a time for gloating, bragging, expressing victory. It's a very sad case. Cruise knows that he was crushed. He doesn't have a case. He doesn't have to stand here and say that he's advocating on behalf of the victims and then look down to see what their names are. I'm representing a woman who is a fantastic, wonderful individual. This woman is so brave, so awesome. Every day, she came in this courthouse, stood tall. No pun intended. that the poor thing is in a wheelchair, as we all know for the rest of her life,

sat there through seven weeks of the trial where nobody had anything bad to say about her except for the two prosecutors and apparently Tim Cruz. She had people that would meet her, nurses that would know her, that would visit with her, the chaplain who never knew it from Brigham and Women's, who went for three years. years and continues to visit with her because of the type of person she is. And it's not right what she had to go through because she grieves the loss of those three children, Cora, Dawson, and Callan, because I know their names. I don't have to look down to a piece of paper and find out what their names are.

And every time somebody had something to say about those young kids, Lindsay would smile and say, I'm glad. She wants them to be remembered. Where do I begin to thank these jurors, minus one? The four lady of the jury, I was so proud when she indicated, after the judge sent them back to deliberate, indicating that one of the person would not listen to the law, and then she came back immediately with the question

stating that this is one individual. It was 11.01 for an acquittal and one individual who recognize that there was reasonable doubt and refused to apply the law. So you don't stand here on a bunch of microphones and crow about your victory because you, Tim, were crushed as well you should have been. And I just have to say that people behind me, it's unbelievable. Patrick, my son Pat, attorney who helped us out through the course of this trial and thinks of Lindsay as a sister. Dan Nato from Nato Associates, Rod Jones, my friend and private investigator. Thank you, by the way, to the person who said they disagree with me, but they'll still keep watching. Thank you to all of those agreeing and disagreeing respectfully in the chat.

And that's why I always save what I think for the very end so that we can enjoy this together no matter what our conclusion is with the evidence. I honestly, though I also want to point this out too, after everything I've watched and seen, I do think that the prosecution's conduct during this trial deserves some scrutiny too. There were moments that, in my opinion, were incredibly inappropriate. The Commonwealth brought up the Catholic belief that murder is immortal sin twice. twice. There were hot mic moments where one of them allegedly said, get her out of here while Lindsay was crying during descriptions of her children's autopsies. And then there was Buckingham wearing

that Godforsaken bow to court every single day. I kept trying to not see it and I couldn't help it. We all know the Cora, beautiful Cora loved bows. We saw so many, so many sweet pictures of her inner big bows. But to me, it did feel like an attempt to keep an emotional image of Cora. court in front of the jury over and over again. I'm surprised the judge allowed it. And then there were the little reactions, the smirks when the Commonwealth got its way, the moments where it seemed like the prosecution was enjoying a courtroom victory in a case this devastating. I'm sorry. I know that many of you, I will respect you that they're both mothers. They both worked hard. They both went back to their families every night. But I did find some of it disgraceful. There is nothing wrong with

advocating passionately for your case, but there is a difference between presenting evidence. and trying to manipulate the emotions of a courtroom. We all understand here in this chat, and I hope that we can, no matter what we believe or think about the evidence, what conclusion we've landed on, I think the one thing we can all unite on is Cora, Dawson, and Callan, three children died.

Nobody needs to be reminded that this is horrific. The facts were horrific by themselves. They were horrific. We also heard from Lindsay's civil. attorneys today. They said that they believe failures within the health care system contributed to what happened. There was an attorney who argued that the way postpartum mental health conditions are discussed can minimize what women actually experience. I interviewed my dear childhood friend, by the way, on my channel, if you haven't watched it, please do. My friend, Geneva, that I've been dear friends with

since high school about her experience with postpartum psychosis. So, health conditions that minimize what women actually experience, their case will focus a lot on the failures by the medical providers who treated Lindsay in this civil case with her civil attorney. It's going to focus on the failures by medical providers who treated Lindsay, including allegations that she was over prescribed medications and released without receiving adequate treatment. So the position of her civil attorneys is that essentially the system that was supposed to help Lindsay failed her and those failures do absolutely need to be examined. And we just want to say that we would not be here today, but for the negligence of her

doctors and medical providers. All of this was caused by the failures of the medical profession. She wouldn't have been here. She wouldn't have gone through all she's gone through for the past years, except for the failures of the medical profession, they dropped the ball, they caused her to be here, and everybody is suffering as a result. There are many victims. and it's all the result of the failures of the medical system.

And we plan on holding each and every doctor and each and every hospital responsible for how they feel, Lindsay, time and time and time again. And that's what's going to happen in the trial that we have. But for right now, she has to go through a second trial because of their negligence. And it's devastating. It's devastating to her. It's devastating to her family. This is a nightmare that's never going to end.

And everybody has to understand. You know, Lindsay wakes up every day. And the first thing she thinks of is her kids, every single solitary day. And that doesn't go away. Whether this trial happens or another trial happens, that doesn't go away, ever. And we need to make things right. We need to make sure that when there is postpartum or maternal mental health, that these doctors start listening to women because that's not what they're doing right now.

And they're doing a disservice to the entire population of women that need care after they have a child. And it's so infuriating that not only do they not get care, But let's just talk about the names that they label women that are either depressed or have hormonal imbalances. They call them baby blues. Do you think for a second, if a man had an erectile dysfunction, they'd be calling it penis blues? No, because it minimizes what you're suffering from. And we're here to change that on behalf of Lindsay. Can you talk to us about how she's doing?

I can't. That's Kevin. Kevin. How is Lindsay right now? You were with her. She was failed by the mental health system in her doctors, but that she's also criminally responsible. I don't believe she's criminal responsible. Rosemary, you were just with her

in there. You've been with her all day. How is she right now? How aware is she? How aware is she of what's going on? Of course she's aware. She's aware. She's going to a whole trial. How does it for a second trial affect your civil trial? I'm sorry. The need for a potential

second criminal trial here, how did that impact your civil trial? Well, our civil trial is going to take a little longer than the criminal trial, which hopefully would be coming up quickly. And Lindsay will be resolved, hopefully, in the criminal trial. And that'll be before the fall. Ours is going to go on, but we expect and will continue to be pointing out the failures of the medical system,

how it's failed women, as Rosemary said, and how it's failed Lindsay and caused us all to be here for the past weeks and the tragedy that happened years ago. Many of the doctors that you saw here that testify, many of the doctors, complainers on file, you'll see many of the doctors, McLean's, cops, all those doctors who were treating her that let her go, let her go without treatment, overprescribed and misprescribed drugs as alleged in the complaint. It's all going to be brought out, and it's brought out somewhat here, and it's going to be brought out more in the civil case. Well, thank you, Rosemary. I think that all of those points are really important conversations

to have regardless of what ultimately happens in the criminal case, because if we look at Lindsay and say only she killed her children. We simply answer the easiest question, right? It's easy. We want, and we want to put something in a package that's easy and tie it with a bow. She killed her children. The harder question is, how did a woman who was apparently experiencing such profound psychiatric crisis get to the point where this happened?

I think that that deserves an answer to. Those issues will continue to play out in the civil case. So her civil case continues. And very likely, again, in another trial. And in addition to all of that, Judge Sullivan ordered that the names of the jurors be impounded for 14 days, given everything that's happened, I think that's pretty understandable. He cited the, quote, significant and divisive attention, unquote, that this trial has received, not just in Massachusetts, but nationally and internationally. I mean, look at our chat, right? he specifically pointed to the enormous amount of commentary surrounding the cases on social media.

And then, of course, there was an incident where someone was arrested and charged for allegedly recording the jurors as they were leaving the courthouse. Did you guys see that one in the days where we were taking a break during the deliberations? Yeah. Yeah, someone was charged with filming the jurors. The judge said that the Supreme Judicial Court has recognized that jurors' safety is critical to the fair functioning of the judicial system. Amen. It really, really is. So for now, the list identifying the jurors is being kept under seal. That does not mean individual jurors cannot voluntarily identify themselves or talk about their experience if they choose to. I would welcome any juror here who would like to talk, but I understand if

none of them will want to. Whoever chooses to come speak will be very brave. But the court is not going to hand the internet a list of names and basically say, here you go. And then after everything was over, we heard from Patrick Clancy, the father of the three children, a victim. And his attorney, Patrick's attorney, David Meyer, released a statement saying, quote, Patrick Clancy is grateful to the court and to the jurors for their hard work, their commitment, and their perseverance. The loss of Patrick's children is something from which he will never recover and from which there will never be closure.

The prospect of reliving this tragedy. through another trial is extraordinarily painful for Patrick, for his family, and for all of us. End quote. And that's where I think we need to remember what actually we're talking about. This isn't a TV season finale where the writers didn't give us an ending and we want season two. More than three years later, a father is facing the possibility of sitting through another horrific trial about the deaths of his children again. Lindsay could be forced to endure another gut-wrenching trial while remaining in a psychiatric hospital, and two families could be forced to reopen wounds that never really closed in the first place.

And that's where my feelings about this whole thing really comes in. I have been following this case from the very beginning. I've listened to the testimony. I've listened to the evidence. I, again, was in the courtroom when Patrick's horrifying 911 call was played. We've talked about the experts, the medications, Lindsay's behavior before and after the murders, the defense and the arguments from both sides. And I came into this trial with an open mind, truly. But after hearing everything, I truly believe Lindsay was suffering from postpartum psychosis

and that she should have been found, not guilty, because she is not reasonably, she's not criminally responsible, reasons of insanity. I know not everyone agrees with me, clearly. That is okay. That's what a trial is for. You're supposed to have. 12 people sit down, listen to everything, apply the law, and come to an unanimous verdict. If 11 jurors believe one thing and one juror believes something completely different, that juror is absolutely entitled to hold onto that belief if they genuinely believe the evidence and that the law requires it. But that's not actually the allegation here. The allegation isn't that just one juror disagreed. The allegation is that one juror acknowledged

reasonable doubt, but refused, refused to apply it because he disagreed with what the law required. And if that's what truly happened, that's the part I'm having a really hard time accepting. Reasonable doubt is not a suggestion. It's not a vibe. It's not something a juror gets to redefine because they don't like the consequences of applying it. The jury was not supposed to decide whether Lindsay deserved punishment. They were supposed to decide whether the Commonwealth proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt under the law the judge gave them. That's it. They are not supposed to decide whether she deserves time behind bars or in a psychiatric hospital. They had the job of simply deciding whether the prosecution, the Commonwealth,

proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt under the law the judge gave them. And so now we're sitting here with a mistrial. After eight weeks, no verdict, no resolution, a lot of pain from everyone in there testifying, listening. So what happens now? Well, for Lindsay, not much changes immediately. She continues to have charges of murder. She'll remain at Tugsbury State Hospital while the criminal case moves forward and the civil case. A mistrial does not mean Lindsay was acquitted. It does not mean she's been found guilty. Essentially, the case goes back to where it was before the trial began. Yeah, that's it. Except now we spent seven weeks presenting evidence, 40 hours deliberating, and we're right back

to where we started. Lindsay is still facing the murder charges, and she's being held in the psychiatric hospital while the case remains unsolved. And now the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office has a decision to make. I'm going to be really interested in their decision, because they can decide to try Lindsay again. And if they do, we'd be looking at a completely new jury reselection process, another trial, potentially another very long trial, a lot of taxpayer dollars. But it's also possible that the charges in the second trial could look different. The prosecution isn't necessarily locked into doing everything exactly the same as they did the first. In fact, they kind of switched gears, I noticed, starting out trying to say she wasn't really

trying to harm herself and then jumping with their last witness into, oh, it was an altruistic killing and she was taking them with her. I mean, they definitely switched gears. So they could change, they could change, you know, direction in another trial. There's also the possibility of a plea agreement, something they did not offer Lindsay before this trial. Boston defense attorney and legal analyst Brad Bailey pointed out that whatever prosecutors decide, they hopefully will consider putting someone through another trial with a first-degree murder charge hanging over their head. And the defense is at least going to explain. or whether there's another way to resolve the case, right?

And that's just reality. A plea deal does not necessarily mean either side suddenly agrees about what happened. Clearly, I don't think the prosecution and the defense will ever agree. Can you imagine if they were in the deliberating room? Things to imagine. But it can be a way to avoid the uncertainty, expense, and emotional devastation of doing this all over again. Then there's this other option. The DA's office could simply decide not to retry Lindsay.

They could look at everything that happened during this trial. all of the evidence, all of the emotions, and the conspiracy theories and the heartbreak and the enormous amount of expert testimony, the expense, emotional toll, the very real possibility that another jury could reach the same conclusion or another jury could be deadlocked again. And they're also realizing that 11 of the jurors did not believe they proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. We don't know what they're going to do. Cruise made it pretty clear that they are not making that decision today. So right now, we are still waiting.

We're going to wait and find out what the DA decides. And after all of this, I don't think anyone gets to walk away, feeling like they won. Certainly not those jurors who spent seven weeks listening to the most terrific evidence imaginable. Another week deliberating only to leave without being able to fulfill the job they were brought there to do. I, yeah, I mean, maybe. be, you know, yeah, I am, I am definitely angry. But it is not, I just want to reiterate, I just want to reiterate, I am really angry, but it is not because one juror didn't vote the way I wanted him to after I saw all of the evidence. He had every right to disagree with me. He doesn't even know

yeah. But what he didn't have the right to do was disregard the law. And if, if the allegations about what happened in the jury room are true, that's where I believe the system failed. So congratulations, I guess, to the holdout juror on completing his civic duty. He truly did complete it. And he got his main character moment and apparently managed to derail an entire seven-week trial. Meanwhile, Patrick is to live with the fact that his three children are gone forever. Lindsay remains hospitalized. Two families are left waiting in limbo, in limbo. The prosecution has to decide whether to spend millions of dollars and months of everyone's life's doing this all over again. And the rest of us are left wondering how the hell we got here

with no verdict. There was supposed to be some form of closure and there definitely is not. But if there are any major developments, I will be here to break them down for you because whatever happens next, this case is not over. And strange enough, strange enough, you can almost say this case is just beginning if there is another trial. I also want to share before this is over that I saw some of you were already watching it. I am on 2020 tonight, I think right now, airing on ABC. And you can also watch that episode. It's also a 2020 nightline impact exclusive.

It's a collab. It'll be on Hulu and Disney Plus as well if you miss it tonight. And I am honored to be a part of that episode and to have shared some of my thoughts and experiences. And yeah, as I always say, what I've always said from the beginning of this trial, we all want justice for these children, but what justice looks like definitely varies from person to person. I wore my justice necklace today, even though I don't think there's any justice. So it's strange to be wearing that. We'll see what happens next. We'll see what the DA decides. But until then, I guess at the end of all of this, it's still still the same thing.

May justice be served, whatever justice looks like.