The DeVory Darkins Show - BREAKING: Lindsay Clancy Judge SHOCKING Announcement leaves Americans STUNNED

Episode Date: September 8, 2026

Lindsay Clancy supporters SCREAM at District Attorney after Judge declares MISTRIAL. This comes after a 11-1 split juror where the lone juror decided on Guilty. This outcome is a MAJOR BLOW to American Women and highlights the disconnect in holding women accountable versus how the system treats men which similar crimes.FOLLOW ME:⁠https://www.x.com/devorydarkins⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/devorydarkins⁠⁠https://www.rumble.com/c/devorydarkins⁠⁠https://devory.wtf.tv⁠BUY ME A COFFEE:⁠https://buymeacoffee.com/devorydarkins⁠SHOP OUR MERCH STORE:⁠https://store.devorydarkins.com⁠BUSINESS INQUIRIES:⁠[e-mail]⁠

Women in America have just suffered a major blow after what happened in the Lindsay Clancy trial. Take a look. Let's actually listen in to the courtroom in Plymouth, Massachusetts right now. I'm going to return back to the matter. Conwell v. Lindsay Clancy, off parties, the president, excluding the jury. All right. Counsel, it's my understanding that the SJC issued their 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.

And that is an official ruling from the judge. This case is a mistrial. So the district attorney, they're going to have to figure things out. Will they be able to get a new trial? We're going to answer that later in this video. But where I want to focus first is the message this is sending not only to America, but women as a whole. And the best way to demonstrate that is what the attorneys had to say.

Take a look. Listen, why aren't you saying right now that you will retrial into court? You only cared when the kids were dead. Why don't you care about the mother? Amen. Listen, I told you my decision right now. Vote out to improve. Listen, I told you my decision on that already.

I'll be making that decision shortly. DA Cruz. Your prosecutors who have gone through this for weeks, been working on this case. I assume for three and a half years, do either of you want to say anything about the experience in trying this case, especially with families at home? I think that we're going to just stand, and I'll just speak for them at this point. Like you said, it has been a long and difficult few weeks. DA Cruz. This is a question for you.

So if this goes to a potential retrial, what do you expect you to do? I can't hear you. Yeah, so you can hear the women screaming at the district attorney for doing his job to find justice for these three children. that were senselessly murdered, in my opinion. So let me give it to you guys straight. If this Lindsay Clancy case has taught America one lesson, it would be that women refuse to hold each other accountable. Look no further to the countless stories of men murdering their children,

which has led to the death penalty, whether it's because they had a case of psychosis or PTSD. Accountability is required to keep men in check in a flourishing society. But what about for women? Doesn't seem so. which is why I argue that society is cooked, and this is a black eye for women out there. But more importantly, let's not forget about the true victims in all of this. It's not Lindsay Clancy. It's the children.

Take a listen. I don't necessarily believe your case. What do you say to those people who felt that the whole prosecution was insensitive? 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 that 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. Well, it's because we live in a society where we often have more sympathy now for the criminals, for the offenders, for the people who actually did harm and did damage, and we have little to no sympathy for the true victims, whether it's illegal immigration, whether it's soft on crime policies, whether it's mothers now in America murdering their kids, it's the same principle every time. I call it gentle governance.

We have much more sympathy, and we do not want to harm the criminal because we care more about their feelings, but not the victims. It's interesting. It's almost as if society has content now for victims in our society. Look no further to the defense attorney as he started to rage against that one juror who actually had balls. 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 was so attentive, so beautiful, so wonderful. And listen to this evidence. And you could see how defeated they were sitting there. And I got a funny feeling that they would have gone on for another week if they had to. So I hope that guy can sleep well at night.

You know what? I think he will be able to sleep well at night because he clearly did not bend the knee to suicidal empathy. He clearly did not buy into the idea that Lindsay Clancy is the victim here. He robbed the jurors last seven weeks their lives? No, they're still alive. They're still breathing. They're going to be able to move on with their lives. But you know who won't?

Those three children. Notice the attorney had nothing to say about this. as he continues to rage against this one juror. It just tells you everything you need to know. And by the way, most of the jurors are women. Three of them were men. So two of the men, they have no balls, okay. But the one man, use logic.

And if somebody commits a murder, step one, accountability, whether it is the death penalty or prison. If we really want to help them in the end, we help them after they're in prison. I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something. who won in this mistrial, the prosecution, the defense here. Again, we're all thinking there was 11 saying not guilty by reason of insanity, the one holdout.

So Reddington kind of almost got it there. The prosecution, it would almost seem like, you know, that didn't, wasn't convincing enough. Yeah, David and I were discussing earlier. I mean, the point is, a mistrial's generally a huge win for a defense in a criminal case always. So yesterday it was so interesting. When he said, I don't want a mistrial right away, I knew it was 11 to 1 not guilty. Because he was close. Let's say it was 11 to 1 for guilty.

And one guy's holding the line, I want him to excuse. No, no. You want him to stay. You want him to stay. I'm by the way, it's like, can I get another Allen charge to break this deadlock? But joking aside, 111 conviction versus 111 acquittal, two completely different animals, vis-a-vis Allen charges and mist trials. Now, let's talk about what may have played a role.

and why in this case arrived at a mistrial. My producer actually sent this to me. The burden of proof in this particular state is reversed. Unlike most states where the defense must prove insanity in Massachusetts law forces, in Massachusetts, the law requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant was sane. Does that make sense? It's reversed. So the burden is actually on the prosecution, not the defense.

The defense did not have to prove Clancy was psychotic. Instead, the prosecutors had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was mentally sound, knew right from wrong, and could control herself. Well, based on that Massachusetts law, I can see why we kind of arrived that 11 to 1. Right? I could reason with that. based on that language right there. I don't agree with it.

But again, different states have different jurisdictions. So the question here is, what is the DA planning to do next? Let's take a look. 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'll not get 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. He will definitely be able to sleep well at night because he knows he was on purpose this entire trial. Now that defense attorney on the other hand, I don't know how he's going to.

be able to sleep peacefully at night. I do know, based on what I just read you in regarding to, in regards to the law, yeah, I think that was probably a flawed case to begin with based on the burden of proof. Then you combine that with women who refuse to hold each other accountable, generally speaking in our society. And we know that because of the double standard of men who have done the same thing that Lindsay Clancy did and met the death penalty, but women have not. So, to do a contrast, here's more what the defense attorney had to say about Lindsay Clancy and not her three children. 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, 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 her from Brigham and Women's, who went for three 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.

The full story is this. This is a woman who had three kids and was on a lot of pills. Okay. That's true. That is a fact. Those pills clearly mess with her on a biological level, meaning a cellular level, in her brain. We know this. This is the problem with the mental health industry.

They've only been able to, I guess, provide any level of service that they deemed to be quality in the form of pills. And me and you both know there's a danger in that. It's also true that she had everything a stay-at-home mom would want, multiple nannies, grandparents in the kid's life, a husband who even started to work from home and provide it. That's true as well. it's also true that she murdered her kids in cold blood. Now, according to the burden of proof, according to the law, it's true technically, based on these jurors, that she was not sane when she did it. Now, which way do I lean? Well, if she's been on those pills, would she have ever been sane?

That's a phenomenal question. And I didn't watch every minute of the trial because I just think it's too traumatic. but here's the bottom line Lindsay Clancy should be in either one of two places in a mental institution or in prison. She definitely should not be starting a new life

and being free. There has to be some level of accountability. I think that is also part of the full story. Here's what Congressman Brandon Gill had to say as a reaction. What are your thoughts on not only the Lindsay Clancy trial but her defense attorney describing her as brave? She is anything but brave. That viewer was exactly right.

I mean, whenever I look at this, I have an enormous amount of sympathy for those three little innocent kids who are slaughtered. I don't have an ounce of sympathy for Lindsay Clancy. You know, this is one of those things where I think we ought to be able to draw a pretty clear distinction between right and wrong. You don't get licensed to murder your children or anybody else just because you have mental health problems. But I think more fundamentally, we've gotten in a habit of medicalizing evil. What happened here is a woman, maybe she had some problems, we don't know all the details, who murdered three innocent children, full stop, that's it. And because of that, I think justice demands that she would

receive the death penalty, but at the very least, whether she was hearing voices or not, it doesn't really matter. She ought to be locked up and off of our streets for the rest of her life. Now, when you hear Brandon Gill say that, the congressman, the pushback to that state, is he has no empathy. Well, his empathy is directed towards the children in the form of justice and justice in his mind. And a lot of minds out there, especially logical minds, is that Lindsay would be in prison. Now, I think we should make room for a conversation about our mental health industry. I think they deserve a lot of criticism. I think we should be looking for changes, whether we should be advocating for Congress to change something in our system to address these issues. I think that's fair, but it's not an either-or. It's and. She should be in prison. And why is a woman able to go to multiple doctors and get these types of pills that could change her mental state? And her husband, where was he at in all of this? Why did he leave those kids at home, knowing her mental state, knowing what she had went through over the past 18 months? I think all

of those things are true at the same time. It's a fascinating turn of phrase, one that I think has a lot more meaning behind it than we should simply jump past medicalizing evil. What do you mean? I mean that a lot of these issues just aren't that complicated. You can look at, you know, anytime somebody murders somebody else, there's probably a lot going through their head, unless they're just a clear psychopath. Maybe they've got some issues. Maybe they're depressed. Maybe they're hearing voices. But at the end of the day, I, candidly, I don't really care. That person, if they're hearing voices, they shouldn't be on our streets and they shouldn't be they shouldn't be murdering people and they shouldn't be given the opportunity.

And by the process of medicalizing it, we begin the process of excusing it and somehow avoiding full accountability? I think that's exactly what it is. And it's a lack of recognition that evil exists, that evil is a motivating factor, that evil. I believe in good versus evil. I believe in God and Satan. And I believe that both of them act in this world, and we ought to be realistic about that. And I don't think that we should be passing that over and using mental health as an excuse. So bottom line here, it's a mistrial. What are the chances they're going to bring a new trial and get jurors who have no knowledge of this case? I'd find that, I would argue, it's slim to none.

I mean, I would argue they'd have to go outside the state, possibly, find some town that's been living under Iraq. I mean, this has gotten a lot of national attention. So, you know, now, now one could make the argument that if they did go to a different state, then the burden of proof would be on the defense team at that point. Maybe that would change the outcome. I don't know. But I will tell you this. I hope the three children are sitting next to Jesus,

and they're resting in peace, and Lindsay will never be the same, and neither will her husband. Their lives are changed forever. That is for sure. And I do believe this is still another indictment on women as a whole in our society, as they refuse to hold each other accountable.

You guys let me know if you agree with my point of view on this. You may not agree with everything, but I'm sure you agree that the two victims in this are the three children, not necessarily Lindsay Clancy, and that the burden of proof, according to Massachusetts law, really through, or in my opinion, doing this case from the beginning. And maybe that's what's not getting that much attention.

But share your thoughts in the comments section below. We are back in the studio. I was on the road in Las Vegas. I did a couple of debates, or quite a few actually, and we'll be releasing footage of that as well. But share the show with your family and friends, guys, please. And if you miss out on my video from yesterday, click on it because it's coming up right now.