Law&Crime Sidebar - Mistrial ROCKS Lindsay Clancy Case — Now What?

Episode Date: September 4, 2026

Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mom on trial for allegedly murdering her three young children before trying to take her own life, learned Friday that a jury could not reach a decision in her case. Despite an eleventh hour appeal from the defense, the judge declared the jury declared a mistrial. Law&Crime's Jesse Weber and attorney Matthew Tympanick dissect the legal back-and-forth, the judge's decision, and what's next for Clancy.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson, Heather Berzak & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A mistrial has been declared after a drama-filled day in the Lindsay Clancy murder case, where another court had to get involved all because of a juror allegedly not following the law. We are going to break down what exactly happened here, and more importantly, what is going to happen next. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Counsel, it's my understanding that the SJC issued there, order 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 a mistrial.

Yep, the judge has officially declared a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy murder case. This is something that is quite significant because after almost 40 hours of deliberations with reports of of a juror going rogue and now the Supreme Judicial Court having to get involved at one point today. It's been quite a day. The judge, after this jury declared they are hopelessly deadlocked, declared a mistrial in this case. And remember what was at stake here? Remember what we're talking about, Lindsay Clancy. This mother was accused of strangling to death her three young children. Cora, five years old, Dawson, three years old, Callan, eight months old, killing them with exercise bans. Every side admitted it. They conceded it. The question was, was she legally responsible? Was she

criminally responsible under the law? The defense says, no, that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis, that she could not appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions, the illegality. She could not conform her behavior to the law. Prosecution said no, that she didn't suffer from psychosis at that moment, that she was in control of her actions, that she intentionally killed her children, that she planned for this. And we see this deliberation going into the seventh day, and there was this drama with a juror. The jury four person handed a note to the judge, the court, basically saying that there was a juror who would not follow the law on reasonable doubt. There became a whole back and forth about whether to question this juror, whether the juror should be

dismissed. As I mentioned, their higher court gets involved. And now we have this. Now, before we jump into this, and obviously there's a lot to get to, we can't show you every of trial testimony, every document, every motion. You know, we're limited what we can do here on Sidebar. But like we do with this big case and the other big cases that we have, if you go to the case file section on the Long Crime Plus app, we're basically opening up the evidence fault. So you can inspect the raw body cam footage, the 911 calls,

the crime scene photos, the full trial tapes firsthand on all these big cases. Plus, you get ad-free streaming of all your favorite long crime and court TV shows. Also, we've got a special Labor Day offer for you. So use my promo code Sidebar. You get your first 30 days of Long Crime Plus free. Now, the offer ends September 7th, so head on over to Long Crime Plus. Use Code Sidebar to subscribe today. Okay, let's get back to this.

I want to talk about what we can expect next, when Lindsay Clancy would be retried, in what capacity. And I really can't think of a better guest than Matt to panic, who is not only a criminal defense lawyer, but he is from Plymouth, Massachusetts. He knows the law in this jurisdiction. And Matt, I want to bring you on right now. I am made of questions. This has been a roller coaster of a day. First, let's just start out. Your reaction to this deadlock jury, because I knew that they were going to deliberate for quite some time, given the complexities of this case. Are you surprised that we have a mistrial, a deadlock jury? No, not at all. I was on court TV last Friday, and I was speaking with Ted Rollins. And I said, if we don't get a verdict today, August 28th, the likelihood of a mistrial shoot. through the roof because of a hung jury. That's because with these facts, they had the ability to entrench jurors so much in their personal opinions that they may not be able to see pass

their personal biases and come to unanimous verdict. So when I was just waiting for eventually I was kind of quarterbacking it through the this whole week. It's like, all right, they're going to come back with their note in the morning. They're going to get the Tuwey Rodriguez instruction. And then it took till Friday to actually get the mistrial. Let's break this down for a second, right? They came back once and they said, we can't come to a decision. The judge informally told them to go back. They come back again hours later, say, we're deadlocked. Then he gives them the official Tuie Rodriguez instruction,

which basically says don't sacrifice your own convictions, but listen to each side. There's not a jury that is better equipped to handle this than you. This is your duty. They go back. They deliberate. Then we have this issue with the juror. I'm going to talk about that a minute.

They go back. They say they're help. they're helplessly deadlocked, right? It's with a heavy heart that they're deadlocked. Now, I'm not surprised because this was a situation where the law on this is complicated. You can't even have experts agreeing on the same page with this. But do you think that this was a situation where it really was emotion or bias? Or this is a really difficult case where you have to determine whether or not someone was insane

at the time of the commission of this effect. I mean, to me, I thought the prosecution did a really strong job at the conclusion of their case, with one of their last witnesses and also the closing arguments to say it was planned, right, that she had her husband at the time Patrick Clancy leave the home, that this was three separate acts, that when you look at the forensic evidence, the only way this would make sense is that she killed her children right after he left the home, that this voice she heard was a convenient voice. And the defense said, you know, look, how do you explain this? How do you explain a mom doing this who seemed to love her children was a great mom?

You have to blame the drugs. You have to blame the psychosis. You have to blame poor medical care. But it seemed to me that this was a jury that took this oath seriously. They deliberated, but they just couldn't come to a consensus unless at the end of the day, it's all based on one juror. That's what it sounds like. So what Caitlin Redington said in court yesterday was that the reason that the reason

this is being held up as because of one juror, and he sought to remove that juror. Common sense would say that if that juror was holding up a conviction, he wouldn't be trying to remove that juror. He'd be like, we need to protect this juror at all costs. Instead, so I think based on that, it was the final tally for a guess, and it's just speculation, but it's a good guess. 11 jurors were voting in favor of not guilty by reasoned insanity, and one juror was voting for either was murder or manslaughter. So it's definitely when you look at it was a very tough case. And the prosecution, like you said, did end well. I think their closing was probably the strongest of their entire case. But there were definitely times where they got into the weeds and I couldn't exactly follow where they were going with it.

It's like this was your entire case was at the time of the incident. Did Lindsay Clancy know right from wrong? And there just wasn't enough that we'd be like, okay, that fact goes directly to it. It didn't happen throughout the day. Do you think they focus too much on whether or not she tried to commit suicide or not? Yes, they tried to basically show that this suicide attempt was just to cover her tracks. And that's just speculation. You're almost, by doing so, you're almost admitting there's reasonable doubt in your case. That case needed to focus on at the time the incident that she knew right from wrong.

And that just didn't happen. Let me ask you how this concluded for a second. So you have this juror. There was an accusation from the four person. that this juror was not following the law in reasonable doubt. Now, you could be right. This could be a juror who said, I think she's guilty. I can't say beyond the reasonable doubt that she's guilty, but I think she's guilty.

She probably did it. Maybe that's a circumstance. Maybe you had all the other jurors who actually wanted to convict. I don't know if it was on different degrees of criminality, maybe some thought manslaughter, some different degrees of murder, but you had this juror who said, I'm not convinced, I think she's not guilty, but didn't say, you know, didn't properly apply the law of reasonable. reasonable doubt, whatever it is. The judge was in an interesting position. So the defense wanted the judge to do a proper, a thorough investigation, a voir dire of this juror, really understand

what they're saying about reasonable doubt, and then potentially replace that juror with an alternate and the deliberations would begin again. This became a case where the judge said no. Then, I mean, this was remarkable. Right as the judge said, I'm going to declare a mistrial. This happened earlier this morning. As the jury is being brought in, Kevin Redington does this emergency motion, he goes, Judge, but before you do this, I want to file an emergency motion, a stay, a pause of these proceedings, of this mistrial to petition the Supreme Judicial Court to review what you're doing, to step in, maybe order you to do a thorough examination of this juror. Judge says you have an hour to file it. They file it.

Then there's a separate hearing that was televised, it was on Zoom, where you see it being held by this one justice of the Supreme Judicial Court. He heard the arguments from both the prosecution and the defense. Prosecution wanted a mistrial. And a short time later, they deny the motion. What do you make of all that? It was truly something else. So what Kevin Redington was filing was under mass general law, chapter 211, subsection three. That gives the ability to file an interlocutory appeal which skips the appellate court and goes directly to a single justice of the SJC who has to make a ruling about whether or not the trial court needs to, that this can't even go on, that it needs to be right now this decision. And with that appeal, the issue was, I want to make an individual voir dire of that juror. I want to, looking at the petition, he wanted to remove that juror as he tried to do yesterday because that, that's, juror wasn't following the law. As we saw the SJC Justice who entered the order denied this day.

And that's because it would say it is a very, very jury deliberations are sacred. And by entering an order to that effect, they would be invading the province of the juror. And it would create, and I guarantee it was entered into the mind of the juror, I mean the justice, it would create a slippery slope for every time there's a hung jury. hey, let's invade the province of the jury and find out where it was at. It could be beneficial to both the prosecution and the defense to see where their case is at, because if the prosecution knew it was 11 to 1 in favor of acquittal by reason of insanity, they might be mooring flying to enter some kind of plea deal or agree to what Kevin Redditching was seeking. Now that, unfortunately, this case has gotten an enormous amount of publicity. And remember, as Tip O'Neill said, all politics are local.

in DA Tim Cruz as a Republican, and the outcry on this case from the conservative media is that Lindsay Clancy needs to be thrown away for life. So when you think about it, this case is going to be retried, whether people like it or not. Well, and they're not a ban. I can't imagine they would abandon first-degree murder after everything the prosecution laid out. They said this was a cold-blooded killing of three innocent children. How on earth do they abandon or that? Or what would even be a deal?

They would agree to second-degree murder? I don't think Kevin Redington or Lindsay Clancy would agree to that. Manslaughter, does both sides agree? That's what happened here. It seems to me that it would have to be first-degree murder to be a retry here. Yeah, it's definitely because since they have the, since they weren't able to find out what the jurors says, it has to be first-degree murder. Because when you think about it, that's what this case is about. You can't, if you're the, if you're the district attorney, you can't go back and be like, all right, we probably can't get murder one, murder two.

That would be seen as a surrender. It's like, based on these facts, you're not saying these are a murder. This isn't a murder case. And then, but you're from Kevin Rennington position. You're like, she's not pleading to murder. In the Commonwealth, first degree, murder is automatic life without parole. And second degree is automatic life with the possibility of parole after 15 years. So it's basic almost the same thing.

A parole board, if she pled to second, isn't going to release her in 15 years, 30 years. She'd never get out. Let me ask you a question. So I get the idea. that you keep to remove a juror with these circumstances could potentially have an improper effect on the rest of the jury that if that juror was released and then they bring in an alternate juror hey you don't know what that would do to deliberations but it might send the wrong message to the other jurors and if there was a conviction you know that would be ripe for appeal by uh kevin redington

potentially right but i guess the question is the only time that it would make sense if like this juror got sick and you had no choice but to replace that juror the juror had a conflict or something happened or the juror, that would be an appropriate moment where you can substitute the juror. But this was a situation where you had an accusation from the foreperson. And we don't really know what was going on in the jury deliberation room, that it would be improper for a court to get involved in this capacity, even though there's an allegation that the juror might not be following the law. Yeah, and that's definitely what you are seeing in this case. Because if that juror was removed from these grounds, it creates a very dangerous precedent.

for the future being like, well, this sure isn't agreeing with what I want. They need to be removed and replaced by the alternate. Alternates exist in case of very special circumstances. Somebody gets sick. Somebody has a family crisis. It's not a situation where they refuse to acquit my client and send us home so that have to do a retrial. That's not how the system is designed.

It was definitely worked from his perspective, seeing as we were seeing what was going, a potential what the retrial was going to look like inside and outside the courtroom. So I understood wholeheartedly why he did it, but it just wasn't going to be granted. But under Massachusetts law, can the jurors be polled as to where they were going or no? Like what their verdict was? They can't. So how does this? So will the prosecution in the defense have any idea where the jury was going? I mean, I guess unless the jurors do media interviews or or voluntarily speak with the defense and the prosecution about it. What I kind of the tea leaves I was reading I was observing yesterday when Kevin Renington was speaking. He was making it sound like, and he's been doing this 40 years,

he was making it sound like he knew for sure exactly what the vote was, whether the four person, because they individually bought hired each of the jurors yesterday when they had this issue. And I have to think one or more of the jurors exactly told them where they are at, what's going on inside the courtroom. Obviously, until the trial is over, he's not. He can't reveal that information. I think by going there and saying it's one juror who refuses, I don't think he's doing that if that one juror was preventing a conviction. Because why would you?

A mistrial for a defense lawyer in this type of case is almost a win. But his reaction was yesterday. He had his head was in his arms. He was pacing up and down. He was almost viewing. And it's like, we got so close. And this one juror refused to follow the law of reasonable doubt, which I think I saw someone.

that the four person knew the juror in question understood that there was reasonable doubt, but refused to acquit by reason of insanity. If that's actually true, that's, it is, that would make sense why his reaction was the way it was. Because think about what a retrial's five, six weeks, and then it's six months of preparation, all for what you know exactly what's going to happen and to do it all for a result, you are this close to being able to secure. Yeah, it's a loss for both sides because they really don't want to have to go through this again. the family, you have to imagine, doesn't want to go through this again. Kevin Reddington asked for a motion for reconsideration, if I understood it correctly,

and then referred to a 25B2. I looked it up under Massachusetts law, and this is a motion required for finding of not guilty, and this one is a motion after discharge of the jury. What exactly is he looking for here, as far as you know? He's looking for a jury. So he's asking the judge, like, they couldn't come to a verdict, but based on the evidence presented, I'm asking you to enter a verdict of not guilty, that the evidence presented, based on both sides, is not enough to sustain a conviction.

They couldn't come to a verdict, but is my contention that you agree with me that this case, the defendant should have been found not guilty by reason of insanity. That's what a 25B. It is so seldom, I have tried 45 cases. I've only had one case ever, where one charge, the judge, the judge. judge was like, all right, they convicted him, the defendant, but there wasn't enough evidence. So I'm setting that aside. It is so rarely done by judge because if there isn't a verdict, judges don't want to invade the province of the juror. And they are the fact finders.

And by doing so and by granting that motion, the judge becomes the fact finder. And that is a very difficult spot in a potentially big issue as the case goes to a retrial. When did this retrial happen? It was interesting what you heard in court. Because Kevin Redington's like, I want it immediately. I think he said like a week from this Monday, if I heard him correctly. And the judge is like, look, I would like to have it sooner rather than later, but they have to look at the court schedule, the witness schedule, the lawyer's schedule. They set up a new hearing on September 29th at 9 a.m.

But when is, when do you? And he said the judge, he would like to have a retrial in the fall. But practically speaking, and I do wonder if the prosecution now has. to rework their case in some way. Go back, look at what witnesses were a little shaky, which witnesses maybe they don't call, maybe what kind of case they put on, structure it differently.

Defense now has a, they just got a preview. They just got a whole, and they might be feeling good after what just happened here. But practically speaking, when do you think their retrial of Lindsey Clancy's actually gonna be? I think realistically it's 2027. Really? The reason is this, because think about it,

we're in September. Their next court date is the end of September. You're not going to start this trial in November when you have Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, that you know will go into December Christmas. That's so many days. Think of how many times during this trial that they stopped trial at 1 o'clock or stopped at 3.30. You're not going to, if you start this trial in November, you're not finishing it in December. And you're doing so, and especially if you're the prosecution, you don't want to be trying cases close to Christmas because, jurors are regular people and they're going to be thinking, all right, what is in the holiday

spirit? They shouldn't be doing it, but they do. That's the reality of trials. And they're going to be thinking it's like, we should just let her go and this is the right thing to do. The prosecution is not going to be, it'd be very unlikely and it would be kind of almost rushed if they did it this fall. My belief is it's going to be probably late winter, early spring, 2027. Let me ask you this. If it's true that you had a majority of the jury that was ready to acquit, not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, how do you think they got there? When the prosecution's evidence suggested that she was planning this, that she deliberately lured her husband Patrick out of the house,

that she was researching how far away he was going, that she spoke to him on the phone, that there was this idea that if she really was having a voice, she could have called for emergency services, that she could have called for help, that she only heard this voice at a limited period of time, that if you look at the forensic evidence, she would have had to kill the children right after he left, which would go to deliberation, premeditation, that even when she spoke to him on the phone, that the kids were already dead at that point.

How would they reconcile that? Is it possible that a voice could tell you to kill your children, that you're not in control of your behavior, and plan it at the same time? because is it about a conscious choice? It's if she knows she's killing her children and she knows she's doing something that she wants her husband not to be around because she recognizes that he could stop her,

how do they reconcile that? How do they make sense of that? How do they say that's insanity, but yet is planned in some way? Or maybe they don't think it's planned in some way. I'm trying to understand how they might have reached that conclusion and how they get to that. So what I was listening to,

for for the entire case. It's so simple, not really so simple, but what you needed to prove was black and white. You needed to show at the time of the murder she was saying. That never happened. They kind of just through like circumstantial evidence kind of, oh, well, she was researching. But how do you know she wasn't hearing the voices while she was researching? It's like, oh, try to plan this out. They never got into that. And that's the problem is you're not hit her actions and the evidence they presented didn't show. that she knew right from wrong at the time of the incident. I was waiting for the whole time. It's like they had something like, bam, there it is. There's the evidence you needed. That's the fact that you're going to be able to hammer home. And remember, they had 11, if it is believed

to what Kevin Redmond is insinuated. They had 11 jurors who believed that same way, that there was no single fact that proved that there was, by that fact, reasonable doubt that she was not criminally responsible. So the prosecution's case in the retrial, it needs to focus on that. They called a lot of witnesses where I'm like, what is the point of this? Like, you're just allowing to get picked apart, asking questions, do you know if murder's a mortal sin? It needs to be more streamlined and it needs to be exactly about the element, the single fact, whether she knew right from wrong. And that just didn't happen. And when they, when Kevin Rennington put the pill bottles on, that made for great theater, something out of the TV show to practice back in the day where the jury's like, look at all these together.

If you add even two of these together, you're going to get some kind of postpartum, whether it's psychosis, depression. I don't know. And they just couldn't, they couldn't combat against that. And they ended well. But remember, the trials are based on the evidence. You could have the best closing ever. But the facts and evidence are what truly matters. One more point about this goes to retrial, which is she's found not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility.

as I understand it would either be the DA or a third party who would petition the court that she be committed to a hospital or a mental health facility for as long as she is potentially endangered herself and others. Is it complicated if we're talking about postpartum psychosis, which you could make the argument is just a limited period of psychosis at a specific point in time? The reason I say this is she still endangered herself and others? I mean, it's not like you could have a situation where somebody, is continually under bouts of schizophrenia or psychosis or delusions and they really are in a state

where they can't even appreciate what's going on, then I wonder if you run into a competency issue. That's also a separate question. I mean, could she be competent for a second trial? I don't know. But the point is, is like, is there, but then I look at Andrea Yates too, you know, is there a situation where if she's found not guilty that Lindsay Clancy, after, you know, allegedly killing her children, she could be released one day? Yes.

So in a not guilty by reason of insanity under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, she is committed civilly to a hospital in Bridgewater for a period of 60 days, and then she has intermittent reviews. It would probably take years before they determine she's no longer a threat society. Remember, Andrea Yates was found not guilty by reason of insanity 25 years, and she's still not out of civil commitment. So the people who's thinking it's like, well, she'll go to a facility for 60 days and be out. That's possible. That's highly unlikely. And what they are trying to do is it's almost like a temporary insanity argument in some states. Temporary insanity allows you not to be sent to prison, not to send to a hospital. That's not how it works in the commonwealth.

She'd be sent to a hospital and then intermittently have her case reviewed, sometimes probably for years. It's an unbelievable conclusion to this case. I can't say I'm surprised. I said from the very beginning, it was going to be a long deliberation process. But, you know, look, I also, I spoke to so many people about this case and none of them were on the same page. They were all very adamant about how they felt. Like anybody I spoke about this case, they either felt she was guilty of first-degree murder or she was not guilty. So to see potentially jury not being able to be unanimous, not surprised. However, if this is a situation where it was 11 to 1 and there's this holdout and potentially hold out for a juror who allegedly didn't follow the law. That is a conclusion. I don't know if I

saw coming. But we shall see what happens next. Matt to panic, thank you so much for coming on. I really appreciate you. Thank you, Jesse. It's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so much for joining us. As always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast. You can also check us out on NBC's Peacock as well. If you want to follow me, X Instagram, my News Nation show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through Friday, 11 p.m. Eastern. See you next time, everybody. I'm sorry.