Mistrial ROCKS Lindsay Clancy Case — Now What?

A mistrial has been declared after a. dramafilled day in the Lindsey 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. Council, it's my understanding that um.

the SJC uh issued their order that the. emergency request for relief was denied. and that the temporary stay is lifted. Um and so it would be my intention at. this time to call the jurors back in. Um. and as I indicated to you before to. declare 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 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. Lindseay Clancy. This. mother was accused of strangling to. death her three young children. Kora 5. years old, Dawson 3 years old, Ken 8. months old, killing them with exercise.

bands. 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 for 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, the 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 piece 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 vault. 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. adree streaming of all your favorite. long crime and court TV shows. Also, we. 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. Lindsey Clancy would be retrieded in. what capacity. And I really can't think. of a better guest than Matt Depan, 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 shoots 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 past their personal. biases and come to unanimous verdict. So. when I re 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 Tui 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 Tui 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. They I'm going to talk about. that in a minute. They go back. They say. they're help, you know, they're. helplessly deadlocked, right? They It's. with um heavy heart that they're.

deadlocked. Now, I 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 offense? 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 uh 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 uh 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 uh. Caden Readington said in court yesterday. was that the reason this is being held. up is 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 reason of. 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 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 Lindseay. Clancy know right from wrong? And there. just wasn't enough that would be like, okay, that fact goes directly to it. It. didn't happen throughout. Do. >> you think they focused too much on. whether or not she tried to commit. suicide or not? >> Yes. They tr they tried to basically um. 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 fourth person that. this juror was not following the law and. 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 uh of criminality. Maybe some thought manslaughter, some. different degrees of murder, but you had. this juror who said, "I'm not convinced. Um I I think she's not guilty, but. didn't say, you know, didn't properly. apply the law of reasonable doubt, whatever it is." The judge was in an. interesting position. So, the defense. wanted the judge to do a proper uh a. thorough investigation of voad deer of.

this juror, really understand what. they're saying about uh reasonable. doubt, um 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 juryy's being brought. in, Kevin Readington does this emergency. motion. He goes, "Judge, but before you. do this, I want to file an emergency.

motion, a stay, a pause of this uh of. these proceedings, of this uh 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. was on Zoom where you see. it being held by this one justice of the. Supreme Judicial Court here heard the. arguments from both the prosecution and.

the defense. Prosecution wanted a. mistrial and a short time later they. denied the motion. What do you make of. all that? >> It was truly something else. So what. Kevin Readington was filing was under. Mass General Law chapter 211 subsection. 3. that gives the ability to file an. interlocatory appeal which skips the. appellet 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 uh 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. vaire of that juror I want to looking at. the petition he wanted to remove that. juror as he tried to do yesterday. because that 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 send it is a. very very um 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 was entered into. the mind of the jur I mean the justice. it would create a slippery slope for. every time there's a hung jury. Hey, let's find out. Let's invade the uh 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. they the prosecution knew it was 11 to1. in favor of a quiddle by reason of. insanity, they might be more inclined to.

enter some kind of plea deal or agree to. what Kevin Reddit was seeking. Now that. unfortunately this case has gotten an. enormous amount of publicity and. remember as Tip O'Neal said all politics. are local and DA Tim Cruz as a. Republican and the out the outcry on. this case from the conservative media is. that Lindseay Clansancy needs to be. thrown away for life. So when you think. about it this case is going to be. retrieded whether people like it or not. >> Well, and they're not aband I can't. imagine they would abandon first-degree.

murder ever after everything the. prosecution laid out. They said this was. a coldblooded killing of three innocent. children. How on earth do they abandon. or that or or what would even be a deal? They would agree to seconddegree murder. I don't think Kevin Readington or. Lindsey 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 to be a retry here. >> Yeah, it's definitely because uh since. they have the since they weren't able to. find out what the juror 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. Reington 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 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, a 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 Readington.

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 or the juror had a conflict. or something happened or the juror that. would be an appropriate moment where you. can substitute the juror. This was a. situation where you had an accusation. from the four person 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 uh. 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 of being like, well, this. juror isn't agreeing with what I want. they need to be removed and replaced by. the alternate. Alternate, like you said, alternates exist in case of very special. circumstances. Somebody gets sick, um. somebody has a family crisis. It's not a. situation where they refuse to um acquit. my client and send us home so we're. going to have to do a retrial. That's.

not how the system is designed. It's. definitely it was definitely worth it. from his perspective, seeing as I 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 it wasn't going to be. granted because. >> under Mass but under Massachusetts law, can the jurors be pulled as to where. they were going or no? Like what what. their verdict was, they can't. So, how. does this So, will the prosecution. 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 Reington 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 cuz they individually. voted 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 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 re the law of. reasonable doubt which I think I saw. someone say 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 that's it is. that would make sense why his reaction. was the way it was. Because think about. what a retrial is. 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. the the um um Kevin. Readington 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 direct. 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 we but. is my contention that you agree with me. that this case um the defendant should. been found not guilty by reason of. insanity. That's what a 25 be. It is so. seldom. I have tried 45 cases. I've only.

had one case ever where one charge the. 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 um done by. judge because if there isn't a verdict, judges don't want to invade the province. of the jury and they are the. factfinders. And by doing so and by. granting that motion, the judge becomes. the factfinder. 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 Readington's like, "I I. want it immediately. I want I think he. said like a week from this Monday if I. heard him correctly." Um, and the judge. is like, "Look, I I would like to have. it sooner rather than later, but they. have to look at the court schedule, the. witness schedule, the lawyer schedule.". uh they set up a a new hearing on. September 29th um at 9:00 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. Um 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 uh after what just happened. here. Practically speaking, when do you think. their retrial of Lindsey Clansancy is. actually going to be? >> I think realistically it's 2027.

And the reason is this, because think. about it, we're in September. They're. their 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. how many times during this trial that. they stopped um trial at 1:00 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 the juror 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 the this. is the right thing to do." the. prosecution is not going to be it's it'd. be very unlikely and it would be kind of. almost rushed if they did it this fall. My in my belief is it's going to be. probably uh 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 um you know, if. she really was having a voice, she could. have called for emergency services, 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 it's if she knows she's.

killing her children and she's knows. she's doing something that she wants her. husband not to be around because she re. 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. Um, and how they get to. that. So, what I was what I was. listening 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 at. the time of the murder she was saying. That never happened. They kind of just. threw 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 what Kevin Reinson is. insinuating, 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.

what is the point of this? like you're. just allowed to get picked apart asking. questions. Do you know if murder is 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 Bennington put the pill. bottles on that made for great theater, something out of the TV show The. 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. >> Um, one more point about this goes to. retrial. Let's say she's found not. guilty by lack of criminal. responsibility. Uh, as I understand, it. would either be the DA or third party. who would petition the court that she be. committed to a hospital or mental health. facility for as long as she is.

potentially a danger to 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 h is she still a danger to. 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. Um, 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 Lindseay Clancy. after, you know, allegedly killing her. children, she could be released one day? >> Yes. So, in in a not guilty by reason of. insanity under the laws of the. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, she is. committed civily 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 to. society. Uh remember Andrea Yates was. found not guilty by reason of insanity. 25 years and she's still not out of uh. civil commitment. So the people who's. thinking it's like whoa she could she'll. go to a facility for 60 days and be out. That's very that's possible. That's. highly unlikely. And what they are. trying to do is it's almost like a. temporary insanity argument in uh 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 ma 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 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 to about this case, they.

either felt she was guilty of. first-degree murder or she was not. guilty. Um, so to see potentially jury. not being able to be unanimous, not. surprised. However, if this is a. situation where it was 11 to one and. there's this hold out and potentially a. 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 Tanic, 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. Ex Instagram, my NewsNation. show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through. Friday, 11 pm Eastern. See you next. time, everybody.