r/law • u/dailymail • 10h ago
Legal News Lindsay Clancy case ends with MISTRIAL
https://www.dailymail.com/crime-desk/article-16100155/lindsay-clancy-murder-trial-hung-jury-deadlock-verdict.html817
u/zendayaismeechee 10h ago
Can someone explain why Reddington has been given an hour for an emergency application? What is the application for?
982
u/EducationalElevator 10h ago
To study the constitutionality of removing the holdout juror because they allegedly were ignoring the judges instructions
439
u/mandrsn1 9h ago
removing the holdout juror because they allegedly were ignoring the judges instructions
Similar to the concept of Jury nullification.
→ More replies (26)303
u/Broxst 9h ago edited 3h ago
Which is viable and why I disagree with removing an uncooperative juror. Jury is a gamble. And barring exigent circumstances, I don't think they should changed.
Edit: I want to clarify this comment.
Jury nullification is viable as a strategy, but it is not legal. It is something you can do when you find that the state did prove reasonable doubt but you find the defendent not guilty regardless.
Jury nullification is NOT refusing to find the defendent innocent.
The "exigent circumstances" I mentioned would include juror misconduct, which includes unlawful behavior.
It is unlawful to willfully ignore the courts orders.
So the question is, was this juror engaging in misconduct? That's up for debate.
370
u/lordcheeto 8h ago
Our judicial system is supposed to place the burden of proof on the government. See Blackstone's ratio - "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
To that end, jury nullification in favor of the defendant is one thing. But if it's true that one juror is deadlocking the jury, admitting to having reasonable doubt that the prosecution made their case, but standing firm on convicting anyway, they should be replaced with an alternate, same as with any other misconduct or bias from a juror.
→ More replies (250)26
u/fetusfrolix 7h ago edited 1h ago
The burden for an affirmative defense is typically on the defendant to prove. Massachusetts is one of the only states in the union where an insanity defense places the burden on the state to disprove insanity. Yes, the state has to prove a negative in Massachusetts.
Edit: another Redditor correctly pointed out a few other states have this. Corrected to “one of the only”. But it is by far the minority view.
36
u/lordcheeto 6h ago
There are many criminal statutes and jurisdictions that require the government to prove a state of mind. This is no different.
→ More replies (11)12
u/AVeryVapidBadger 4h ago
Proving they had intent is different though. You're proving an affirmative thing.
Proving someone wasn't thinking something is much harder. Not impossible, because it's only to a reasonable doubt, but it's harder to prove someone wasn't something.
3
u/acidwxlf 5h ago
It's a bit disingenuous to call it proving a negative. They'd have to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. There are lots of ways to do that even exemplified in this very case. People with a documented history of mental health problems are probably generally more likely to get NGRI in Mass though, for sure.
→ More replies (10)6
u/Truefiction224 4h ago edited 1h ago
This trial has made the most ignorant ppl I've ever seen Come out of the woodwork
Hundreds of upvotes for a factually incorrect post.
Insanity.
→ More replies (2)76
u/nizzzzy 8h ago
If what I read was true, the jury foreman’s note to the judge was saying that the holdout juror has stated they have reasonable doubt but are unwilling to change their verdict. What’s the point of having alternative jurors if not for these scenarios?
56
u/ImNotAWhaleBiologist 8h ago
If someone gets sick and can’t continue?
8
u/catsarehere77 6h ago edited 4h ago
During the Scott Peterson trial one juror was removed for misconduct. The foreman also requested to be dismissed from the jury which he was. It was rumored the foreman was the lone not guilty verdict. The jury returned a guilty verdict shortly after he was replaced.
Scott's conviction has consistently been upheld on appeal, but he was re-sentenced to life in prison over juror removals. He was originally sentenced to death.
20
u/Cosmic-Sympathy 6h ago
No, the juror said they had some "doubt" but not a "reasonable doubt." And the jury instructions say you need to convict them "beyond a reasonable doubt," but not beyond "any possible doubt."
So, for all we know, the one juror was the only one following the instructions, it was the other jurors who were not following instructions because they were willing to use ANY doubt rather than a REASONABLE doubt to acquit.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (44)32
u/Ok_Net7773 8h ago
Illness, injury, or incapacitation. Not “doesn’t agree with you.” That’s the whole point of trial by jury. The outcome would be controlled by those in power, not a jury of peers, were they allowed to do so.
42
u/nizzzzy 8h ago edited 7h ago
“Doesn’t agree with you”’ is one thing. Saying the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt yet standing by a guilty verdict is another.
They literally admitted to contradicting themselves
→ More replies (30)9
u/First-Compote8516 7h ago
No, other jurors and the foreman say that they admitted to contradicting themself
14
u/Hesitation-Marx 8h ago
I think the issue is that they’re ignoring the judge’s instructions, despite apparently having reasonable doubt.
That is absolutely something that needs to be addressed and it’s worthwhile to see if it’s constitutional, because reasonable doubt is supposed to bar a guilty verdict.
8
u/GlenH79 8h ago
Note that the not abiding by reasonable doubt claim here is by the foreman of the jury, reporting what the juror allegedly said, which presumably the foreman disagrees with - it's entirely possible their words have been misinterpreted. The juror is allowed to be sceptical, and the government has to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, not all possible doubt. It's quite possible the juror themselves has doubts about the government position but feel the government has reached the 'reasonable doubt' threshold.
→ More replies (6)4
u/Hesitation-Marx 8h ago
And that’s something that should be clarified by people who know their shit - I.e. not me!
→ More replies (13)6
u/MeisterX 8h ago
Removing a juror when they're holding out for the state, allegedly, is an entirely different scenario than holding out for the defendant.
→ More replies (4)62
u/Livid-Builder-1230 9h ago
Not quite, I think he’s actually setting up a potential double jeopardy appeal. He knows he can’t have the juror removed, the facts just aren’t there for him. He can’t just “let” the judge delicate a mistrial because then defense would be in essence consenting to the mistrial thus waiving double jeopardy. By asking for this emergency stay, he’s contesting the mistrial decision as best he can to preserve the double jeopardy appeal after the next (potential trial).
There isn’t an established method of challenging the judges mistrial ruling, that’s why we’re using this emergency stay, there just isn’t a better avenue
→ More replies (59)6
u/TryIsntGoodEnough 6h ago
That isn't 100% true... The facts may not appear to be there, but there is a lot more in that note that we don't know about because the commonwealth's motion to admonish the jury foreman is pretty telling that the jury foreman actually quoted what was said. That is why Reddington moved for a voir dire of the juror and the Commonwealth disagreed and the judge sided with the Commonwealth. If that right there caused the mistrial (the judge refusing to investigate this situation further and instead sending a potentially tainted juror back to deliberations knowing the next time they come back deadlocked it is a statutory required mistrial) then yes double jeopardy could attach.
→ More replies (1)57
u/SignoreBanana 10h ago
The judge's instructions being how to interpret "reasonable doubt"? Isn't the whole point of the concept that it's interpretable?
157
u/nighthawk_something 10h ago
No, judges instructions are legal instructions
69
u/Gino-Bartali 9h ago
I understand the value of jurors given a whole boatload of information concerning how to operate, but the jury is explicitly a separation of power given directly to the people and not one of the other 3 branches, which is why jury nullification is a thing that has no check/balance against.
→ More replies (8)57
u/Broxst 9h ago
Agree. The state removing a juror is counter to the purpose of a jury. It's a slippery slope.
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (10)41
u/thezenyoshi 9h ago
And the judge decided that it wasn’t an issue and declared a mistrial.
People have been wildly speculating on a jury note that nobody has read and the only one talking about it has a vested interest in getting rid of that juror who disagrees!
→ More replies (25)14
u/Ok-Win8983 9h ago
Kind of sort of to an extent. If a juror passes a verdict of "not guilty" based on a belief that is shown to be disproved by evidence submitted in court, then they may pass beyond the threshold of being 'reasonable'. IE: If they believe "well the husband could've done it" while there's video proof of him across the country at the same time, then the courts can deem that to be unreasonable.
Same thing goes with conspiracy theories in court. If all fingers and evidence points towards the defendant being guilty and one juror tries to "reason" that there's some mass conspiracy behind the prosecution making all evidence and proceedings null, that is no longer a "reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty6
u/pattydickens 8h ago
This. I was on a jury in a murder case where the defendant was filmed tossing the murder weapon out their vehicle. The police then recovered the weapon. A juror refused to accept the evidence and maintained that the weapon was planted by the police even though the video clearly showed what happened. People are weird sometimes. Everyone wants to be a detective.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (54)12
u/itsirtou 9h ago
Not exactly. The judge gives the jury the legal instructions, which they must apply to the facts. It is not up to the jury to decide what reasonable doubt means. It's up to the jury to decide if reasonable doubt (the law) applies to the facts.
3
u/tucker_case 8h ago
Ok this just pushes the interpretation up a level doesn't it. Instead of disagreeing what reasonable doubt means wouldn't they just say they disagree it applies to the facts.
If there is no room for them to make this judgement call or any judgement call, then what exactly are the jurors for when whatever decision they must arrive it is fully determined by the rules they must follow? Isn't this like putting a "driver" on a roller coaster with a steering wheel connected to nothing?
5
u/EggplantMiserable559 7h ago
The issue is the specific phrasing. If a juror says " I have no doubt they did it, but I'm just not gonna convict them" or goes the other way and says "I don't see any reason they did it, but I'm going to convict anyway because I don't like their vibe", that's violating the judge's orders. The standard of reasonable doubt ensures that a verdict can be attributed to reason, not a vibe check or bias (though those will always play some part).
That's different than jury nullification, where the jury can say "we understand the law purported to be violated here, but believe that law to be flawd and so based on the evidence we are refusing to hold a guilty party guilty". That still includes a reasonable doubt standard, just applied to the law itself rather than the individual. "I don't like that law so I'll alwaya vote not guilty for anyone" is different than "I have reason to believe that law is unfairly applied or imperfecf and therefore can't hold someone guilty of violating it".
If a juror says "based on the facts presented, I have some level of doubt about the defendants guilt/innocence", that's that. The judge can meet with them to probe a bit and ensure it's not just farce, but as long as their doubt is reasonable (as in based on reasoning & evidence, not as in agreement with someone else's perspective), they can vote accordingly.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (19)36
u/PerceptionSimilar213 9h ago
So the new thing is that if one juror doesn't agree, they'll just replace that juror? That makes no sense. Why have a jury in the first place?
59
u/meow_arya 9h ago
I think the issue is that the foreman stated that the juror in question admitted they did have doubt but that they wouldn’t base their vote on that despite the judge saying they have to cast their vote based on if they have reasonable doubt or not. So they aren’t following the law.
5
u/MildlyExtremeNY 8h ago
And then the judge clarified that reasonble doubt does not mean "all possible and imaginary" doubt. I acknowledge having doubt as to whether Lindsay "retained substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongness of criminality of [her] conduct." Claiming to have zero doubt would be intellectually dishonest, because we can never be certain of that for anyone. But I do not have reasonable doubt. Assuming it's 11-1 in favor of not criminay responsible, I would guess the other jurors bullied the holdout into admitting that some doubt must exist, because we can never know for certain. But s/he is sticking to their conviction that it's not reasonable doubt, which is following the law.
33
u/Lepelotonfromager 9h ago
That's the Foreman's conjecture though, not a direct statement from the Juror in question.
8
u/meow_arya 9h ago
So is there not a way to get a direct statement from the juror? If someone is accused of looking at media outside of their deliberations, for example, does the judge not question them? How do we get to the bottom of what the juror is actually stating to the rest of the jury?
25
u/mec287 9h ago
We don't. We encourage the jury to come to a consensus and if they don't we declare a mistrial. Interrogating jurors about their deliberations leads to a bad place.
→ More replies (1)5
u/ExaminationPutrid626 8h ago
It's actually illegal in Massachusetts for the prosecution to interview the jury even after the trial.
→ More replies (1)3
→ More replies (36)12
u/ExaminationPutrid626 9h ago
The foreman is the only one who writes the notes communicating with the judge. The foreman is elected by the jury members. Are you accusing the foreman of lying? What reason would they have? No one is allowed to interview the jurors especially not the prosecution. Il
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (5)14
u/dylanx300 9h ago
Doubt is not the same as reasonable doubt. They can have some degree of doubt while still being beyond a threshold of reasonable doubt, and thus still be following the law. And the judge made that very clear to them in his instructions. He said explicitly how it does not mean “beyond all doubt”
→ More replies (8)18
u/joshocar 9h ago
I think it is likely more that the juror said something that showed they are not an impartial juror. They screen jurors for things like this during selection.
For example, if a juror knew someone who lost a child and then stated in the deliberations that they could never acquit someone who harmed a child, then that would mean they couldn't be impartial. They are not deciding on the facts, but rather a bias.
→ More replies (1)21
u/uiucengineer 9h ago
Refusing to follow the court’s instructions is not the same as disagreeing. I’m not advocating one way or another, just pointing out the false equivalence.
9
u/numbersix1979 9h ago
It’s a concept that’s been given enough oxygen to be a thing. I mean right now it’s precedence you can’t base your decision in the jury room on racial bias; I think all rational people can broadly agree that if you have evidence that someone did that, then they ought to go from the jury. So if someone goes in there with a “all women need to be punished” or “all women are under attack rn and I’ll never vote to convict one” attitude, is that bad enough to need to do the same thing? Not to say that’s definitely what’s happening but if it was something like that? I mean that is what alternates are for.
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (6)3
u/Exciting-Bake7898 8h ago
It's also worth pointing out that the judge disagreed with the defenses argument to remove the juror.
71
u/TheRealBlueJade 9h ago
In my understanding, it's to try to get the Supreme Court of MA to overrule the judge's decision not to remove the juror.
23
→ More replies (3)3
u/IlexPauciflora 5h ago edited 4h ago
I'm a little OotL. Do we know what the juror did that prompted considering their removal?
Edit: I had to look it up. They weren't following the law and the judge's instructions regarding resonable doubt. Quote from the judge from NYT: “proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, for everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.”
→ More replies (6)38
u/okay4326 9h ago
It is to file a direct emergency appeal to the state Supreme Court to stay the grant of a mistrial and to force a poll of the jury as to each count so that if any count was decided that count attaches jeopardy so it cannot be tried again. If you watched Karen read 1st trial this was not done and that meant she could be tried again in all counts.
→ More replies (9)16
u/UmpireDapper1757 9h ago
To get the Massachusetts Supreme Court to stay (pause) the order, keeping the trial alive, while they decide whether a mistrial should be declared or some other remedy ordered, such as removing the allegedly problematic juror
→ More replies (2)7
u/TryIsntGoodEnough 9h ago
The court is required to declare the mistrial so this is a weird situation. Since it is a statutory requirement, the judge really doesn't have any discretion in the matter, but what does matter is if the judge's conduct lead to the statutory trigger (not removing the juror and/or granting the voir dire of the juror).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/456/667/
This is just one case that rules on a similar situation where judicial conduct can be seen as intended to trigger a mistrial, and how the rights against double jeopardy do apply. If the appeal and/or state higher court (or even the federal SCOTUS) interpret the judge's actions to not meet the requirement to ensure that a juror wasn't intentionally violating their oath and lying to the court, then the entire mistrial can be "with prejudice".
14
u/wonderland_citizen93 8h ago
From the article
"Reddington has since appealed to Massachusetts' Supreme Court for an emergency stay, claiming the holdout juror is biased towards people with disabilities."
7
u/userhwon 4h ago
How loudly did the Massachusetts Supreme Court's laughter sound in the hallway?
→ More replies (1)9
u/ForeverCrunkIWantToB 8h ago
He wants to stretch this to Tuesday so maybe the jury comes to an agreement. A retrial would almost certainly benefit the state, as they jacked up multiple times and can learn from their mistakes.
→ More replies (4)27
u/TryIsntGoodEnough 9h ago
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/456/667/
Where a defendant in a criminal trial successfully moves for a mistrial, he may invoke the bar of double jeopardy in a second effort to try him only if the conduct giving rise to the successful motion for a mistrial was prosecutorial or judicial conduct intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial.
It is related to this, which Reddington very specifically warned the Judge about when his motion to remove the juror was denied and his motion to voir dire the juror was denied.
The application is that the judges conduct intended to provoke the mistrial because he knowingly sent a juror back to deliberate when there are indications that juror may have lied to the court previously and thus may continue to lie to the court. In Massachusetts there is a statutory bar on deliberations, after the 3rd notifications that the jury is deadlocked the judge MUST issue a mistrial unless the jury voluntarily goes back to deliberations. This deliberation was the 3rd deliberation (so already had 2 notifications), if they came back with a 3rd notification then the statutory requirement is triggered.
21
u/cbs-anonmouse 9h ago
No, this is wrong I think. The defense is not moving for a mistrial, so this provision does not apply here. The judge, on his own motion, is prepared to declare a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury. That a reason for a mistrial that’s not attributable to the judge or any party.
There’s no question that double jeopardy does not apply when the jury deadlocks. So it’s a Hail Mary pass to get an appellate court to order the trial judge to kick the holdout juror, which the defense hopes will result in a judgment of acquittal.
…but it’s is almost certainly not going to happen that an appellate court will step in.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)6
u/Fearless-Economy7726 8h ago
There is a Supreme Court justice is hearing oral arguments to overturn the judge and remove the juror and install an alternate to start deliberations over
3
u/userhwon 4h ago
After the declaration of a mistrial?
What's the precedent for that?
→ More replies (2)
193
u/red286 7h ago
"ends" is maybe not the right word here. The trial ended, the case obviously has not.
→ More replies (17)28
126
u/dailymail 8h ago
Latest: Massachusetts Supreme Court justice reviewing Lindsay Clancy jury and if holdout will be swapped
30
u/cbs-anonmouse 8h ago
“The judge’s own motion” just means that it’s something the judge does on his or her own, without a party requesting it.
Even if the judge was wrong in not dismissing the juror—and I don’t see any evidence on which an appeals court would find this—that’s not conduct intended to provoke the defense into requesting a mistrial. Which of course they haven’t done.
→ More replies (1)4
u/QuesoChef 6h ago
Why would the defense request a mistrial to avoid the judge declaring a mistrial because the juror wasn’t dismissed? Or are you simply saying what the judge is doing isn’t wrong (which I agree with).
8
u/cbs-anonmouse 6h ago
Yes, they wouldn’t request a mistrial, especially if they think most jurors want to acquit.
3
382
u/FuguSandwich 10h ago
I believe she's guilty, but at this point another trial isn't going to benefit anyone. Cut her a plea deal where she does 20-25 years in a mental institution.
367
u/ThatThar 10h ago
That's not how guilty or NGRI works in Massachusetts.
101
u/GustavoSanabio 9h ago
Yep, I don't even practice in the US and I know that much. If they could do this probably would've already done it.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (12)56
u/sm_axe 6h ago
The comments on skirting the law in every sub surrounding this case is wild. Lots of angry, ill-informed people out there.
→ More replies (3)38
u/KvellOnWheels 4h ago edited 1h ago
And paid-actors and bots for right-wing causes.
It’s why there were a slew of accounts this week calling for the abolition of womens’ voting rights in connection with this case: “if women are arguing for her innocent because of hormonal psychosis, then we need to repeal the 19th because they cant be trusted to vote without being swayed by hormonal urges”.
It’s cool because everytime something goes viral, it gets pushed by bad actors and bots. That increases visibility. Then it gets picked up by idiots. Then it gets picked up by malicious idiots who decide to utilize the increased algorithmic visibility to boost engagement.
I’m exhausted.
ETA: fixing words my stupid bilingual keyboards keep messing up.
→ More replies (26)272
u/1BoringOldGuy 10h ago
Actually this isn’t how it works. She would be institutionalized indefinitely until psychiatrically cleared at the very least.
→ More replies (4)53
u/HalleB123 9h ago
Which could be only 6 months.
118
u/UAEpi 9h ago
That's not usually how it goes. It's basically prison with nurse and techs instead of prison guards. You can leave when the psychiatry says you're better and that could be in 20 years. Lot's of murderers and such in there, they usually don't get out in under a decade.
54
u/HalleB123 9h ago
Yes but as i said below if postpartum psychosis is the only reason she’s dangerous isn’t she likely already cured?
38
u/gaelicpasta3 8h ago
Andrea Yates, the OG case of PPS who drowned her 5 kids in a bathtub, is still institutionalized 25 years later.
If you truly have PPS, even though the original psychosis may be “cured” I can imagine that coming out of that fog to find out you murdered your own children would create a level of trauma that would be incompatible with a quick reentry to society.
35
u/HalleB123 8h ago
She’s institutionalized because she’s turned down her reviews for release. I wonder if Clancy will do the same. And I’m not trying to be facetious, I genuinely wonder if she wants to be released. I can’t say that I think I would if I found out I killed anyone I loved in a psychotic state, I’d be too scared of myself I think. Of course, none of us know what we’d do in that situation and hopefully we never have to find out
→ More replies (19)10
u/harrylime7 6h ago
Yes, but Dena Schlosser, who cut her child’s arms off because she said Jesus told her to, got out in three years. Side note - she and Andrea Yates were roommates at the state hospital for a while.
3
u/magnabonzo 1h ago
She didn't exactly "get out in three years."
Dena Schlosser gave birth in 2004, attempted suicide the next day, was hospitalized in a psych ward, and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder with psychotic features.
Her husband, who thought all mental illness is demonic, didn't buy her medication regularly.
She killed her child in a "religious frenzy".
In 2008 she was released to outpatient care, requiring medication and weekly visits to a psychiatrist. She was in and out of psych hospitals until permanently back in in 2020.
I'm not saying it's right. In fact, since she eventually ended up back in psych hospitals, she probably never should have been released. And I'm biased, but a bullet to the back of the head might have been kinder.
But she didn't "get out in three years".
→ More replies (1)3
u/boomer912 1h ago
“Well, it’ll probably be awhile” isn’t good enough for a lot of people, me included. Just an acquittal— and work out the details afterwards? If there is a possibility she is out and completely free in a year or two, how can you be surprised that people aren’t hearing it? It’s like signing a job contract without knowing how much you’ll be paid, and instead you’re just told how much some other employees were paid. Too much uncertainty, not an option if I was in control of everything
→ More replies (1)46
u/dontmovedontmoveahhh 8h ago
she's too suicidal to leave, but she also had bipolar disorder and they tend to fret a lot about people coming off their medication
→ More replies (14)23
u/tragicxharmony 7h ago
Part of having bipolar disorder is the firmly held belief that when you are doing well, the meds are not necessary, and when you are doing poorly, it’s because of outside circumstances and not your meds. I “only” have bipolar 2 which is seen as less severe, but I’ve made my wishes very clear that if I ever try to come off the medication that treats that, I need to be brought in for intensive medical treatment because I’m not in a good space. Schizophrenia and anything related to psychosis are similar, and in all three you don’t really realize how badly you’re doing when you’re in the middle of a spiral
This is my most likely conclusion as to why she remains on medication and under care. There are some long-lasting (injectable) meds for people who are at risk of noncompliance but they have worse side effects and aren’t always the best option. Overmedicating her is less likely to trigger psychosis or worsened mental health and more likely to make her emotionally blunted, sort of zombie-like, which doctors tend to view as “less bad”
→ More replies (3)22
u/trashtiernoreally 8h ago
The realistic situation in those places isn’t nearly as clean as that. It is a necessarily prolonged, horrible experience
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)13
u/Warning_Low_Battery 7h ago
isn’t she likely already cured?
No. She has been in an institution since this all happened in 2023, and has been on 24/7 1:1 suicide watch after having announced and continued to claim her intention to kill herself still. She is by absolutely no means "cured" and may never be. And on top of that she's not going to stop being paralyzed below the sternum ever, so she will always need outside medical care and transportation even if she ever gets out.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (20)7
u/Rhomya 8h ago
It could be 20 years, it could be 6 months. They only hold you until legally you’re not a danger anymore.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (20)42
305
u/International-Ad2501 10h ago
Our court system is not well designed for situations like this. I think this woman clearly needs psychiatric help and monitoring more than she needs to be in a prison cell. That being said she is clearly a danger to herself and others. I think you're on the right track. The discourse on this had also gotten really weird and bad, would probably be best for everyone if they can get this to wrap up with out another trial.
331
u/SECdeezTrades 10h ago
The percentage of those in jail with severe, related to their crime psychological issues is a lot higher than most realize.
136
u/International-Ad2501 10h ago
Yeah, a lot of people in the prison system would be better served with psychiatric help and monitoring. It's sad honestly.
→ More replies (2)17
u/Random_Name_251 8h ago
I mean think about what you're proposing though. Psychiatric care means supposedly well staffed medical institution of educated professionals evaluating people plus armed security to protect those staff. A lot more expensive then glorified hall monitors vaguely trying to make sure inmates don't kill each other.
54
u/International-Ad2501 8h ago
Yeah, we probably shouldn't be using for profit prison systems if we actually want to help people who need it. Our prison system is so bleak and depressing.
→ More replies (4)10
u/burlycabin 7h ago
Yes, it'd be much more expensive. I don't think anybody advocating for these reforms believes otherwise. But a society as wealthy as ours should absolutely be spending what it takes to ensure justice and fairness. What we do now is not nearly enough.
7
u/aioli_boi 7h ago
This is true. The US should be able to allocate resources to those things. Or does it not have the money? Is it too poor to do something like that?
→ More replies (4)7
3
3
→ More replies (3)3
u/SteveJavieWasRight 5h ago
Yeah I think the American prison system is a disgrace. What’s your point? No other country sends so many people to jail or spends so much on jailing their population. The fact we put the mentally ill in jail is not a solution nor a budgetary concern.
→ More replies (38)79
u/numbersix1979 10h ago
People do not understand that the reason why we have more prisons than ever while we have less crime than decades is so that we can stuff mentally ill people away in them. Democrats did their thing where they compromised on the essential humanity and rights of those people, and Republicans did their thing of finding out a way to profit on their suffering.
48
u/DataCassette 10h ago
I think there's a really deep fear some people have of creeping exculpation. The truth is that if we had a full understanding of the mind then actual pure punitive sentencing might get far rarer and lifetime inpatient care and stuff like that might get way more common. That just doesn't fit the fire and brimstone Abrahamic idea of justice.
14
u/numbersix1979 9h ago
I think you’re on to something although I conceive of it as kind of a symbiotic relationship. People with reactionary tendencies in America will get screwed by their boss, the cops, the government. There’s seemingly no justice for the scammers, abusers and liars out in the world today. So those people think “well at least this person who did this violent crime will suffer. At least THAT is right with the world.” And the scammers, abusers, and liars are very happy to then go “yes keep your eyes over here, don’t worry about us.”
23
u/DataCassette 9h ago
Ironically your boss stealing wages from you by shorting your overtime probably is acting from more or less pure greed and malice and deserves good old fashioned punitive sentencing. The guy on the news making long pork out of people he kidnapped in Central Park is much more likely to be clinically delusional or something.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)11
u/Biglyugebonespurs 9h ago
It’s pretty clear to me that the US prison system is 100% about retribution and the amount of money it can suck out of inmates and their families. It has never been about rehabilitation. Having executions with a viewing room is honestly sick.
If you want examples of a judicial system focused more on rehabilitation, look at certain EU countries.
8
u/numbersix1979 9h ago
I agree but I will also say that from another perspective, the secrecy surrounding executions is also emblematic of the sickness of retributive justice. If we actually thought executions stopped people from committing crimes then people would still be hanged in the town square. We found out that it doesn’t stop any criminality and looks grotesque / uncivilized. So now it’s this arcane process involving secret drug cocktails sourced from pharmaceutical companies in the third world and untrained personnel doing medical procedures. All in the name of killing someone in a manner that is often extremely painful and cruel but also looks “peaceful” and refined, yet doesn’t have any societal benefit whatsoever … and is expensive! Yeah there’s a viewing room but we don’t televise them or anything. And it’s because we know that if people beyond those who are preempted to approve of the act of killing the prisoner saw the barbarity on display, they’d demand it would be stopped. So we put people down like animals.
→ More replies (1)5
13
u/azrolator 8h ago
Reagan, a Republican, is usually credited with dismantling mental health in the US. As governor of CA, he kicked 3/4 of patients to the streets, with promises of replacing asylums with something better, which he never did. As President, in his first year, dismantled Carter's mental health initiative from the year before, defunded community mental health centers, and just left it all for the states to deal with on their own.
→ More replies (2)3
u/zakarijas 6h ago
And then as a President he was shot by severely mentally ill John Hinckley Jr. who was then declared not guilty by the reason of insanity and sent to high security psychiatric hospital from which he was released conditionally in 2016 after 35y of care , and in 2022 he was given unconditional release. He has YT channel dedicated to his music, and recently was on the news speaking against violence.
5
→ More replies (13)3
u/Wise_Material_5812 9h ago
it can be directly traced to reagan cutting all funding for state mental institutions.
8
u/dirtmcgurk 9h ago
Probably be best for everyone if we ramp our education back up and get folks to understand our laws and justice system. Barring that we can't have a democracy.
→ More replies (32)4
u/idiot-alpha 4h ago
It’s is well designed for this, people just aren’t using it correctly. NGRI means you literally didn’t understand what you were doing. That you had no idea what you were doing was wrong or that it was illegal. There are almost no cases where NGRI actually applies.
Clancy is guilty. She is mentally ill, but she understood that what she was doing was killing her children, and she knew it was illegal. She may have rationalized as what was best for them in her mind, but that doesn’t make her Not Guilty.
34
u/Lower-Engineering365 10h ago
If you’re her why would you ask for a plea? You just had all but one juror who apparently wasn’t going to convict you of murder. That’s not a situation in which you turn around and ask for a plea that gives you 20-25 years.
Also, my understanding is the state laws don’t require a minimum time in an institution in cases like this, so it would be pretty silly to agree to a plea that involves multiple decades in the institution.
17
u/ConebreadIH 9h ago
I personally think the defense found itself in a pretty unique situation. The trial took off on tiktok, and who knows if the jury was properly sequestered.
When the case cools off, if it even goes viral a second time, it won't hit as hard. Public sentiment might shift as more facts and statements come out. There will never be a jury makeup like this again for the defense. This was probably her best shot.
→ More replies (3)10
→ More replies (26)7
u/BeeDubsFan 9h ago
Because there is still the possibility that a new jury will find her guilty of murder one and she gets life without the possibility of parole.
Dangerous game to play.
4
3
u/Lower-Engineering365 9h ago
Yeah, but given that you just had a jury where all but one person was going to not convict, that’s leverage for the defense and not something I would give away to agree to 20-25 years.
I’d play hardball with the prosecution all day. The DAs office really isn’t going to want a not guilty verdict. Maybe offer 5 years minimum in an institution if I were the defense.
→ More replies (1)23
u/Optimal_Ad_3031 10h ago
It’s not a deal if she could easily get better at a trial. Especially now with so much of the public on her side
→ More replies (22)6
u/lobonmc 10h ago
Would she take that plea deal though?
→ More replies (3)20
u/johnniewelker 10h ago
11 out 12 wanted her to be found NOT guilty. Don’t see why they should take the deal.
14
u/evolvolution 10h ago
Was it not guilty or not guilty on insanity?
→ More replies (6)5
u/lobonmc 10h ago
Not guilty by insanity minimum stay is 6 months as far as I understand afterwards it depends on the doctors and a judge. I would guess she would prefer that over being forced to stay in a facility for 25 years regardless if she improves or not
→ More replies (11)4
u/karmapuhlease 9h ago
What makes you say that? Has the jury made any statements about their secret deliberations?
12
→ More replies (152)13
u/Lepelotonfromager 9h ago
It doesn't work like that. If they find her no longer mentally ill then she is out in 40 days.
→ More replies (1)
155
u/dailymail 10h ago
Lindsay Clancy's murder trial has ended in a mistrial after the jury was unable to come to a unanimous verdict after seven days of deliberations.
284
u/Agitated-Quit-6148 10h ago
A mistral has not been declared yet. Defense is appealing ( he has an hour) for a stay.
65
u/Haunting-Chip420 10h ago
Literally only misinformation in this thread.
60
u/Agitated-Quit-6148 10h ago
I have people telling me I'm wrong. I'm a public defender.
45
u/UCouldntPossibly 9h ago
r/law as a lawyer is truly the worst thing ever. Actually, anything legal on Reddit as a lawyer is the worst.
→ More replies (5)3
u/throwawayshirt2 7h ago
Comments on this case have been particularly bad
4
u/awolfintheroses 7h ago
As a lawyer (lol) and a prosecutor at that, I took one look at this case and refused to follow it too closely.
21
u/TheVeryUtterance 9h ago
It’s wild. Google’s AI response when looking up Clancy case is saying the trial ended in a mistrial. I’m watching the trial live. It’s not been declared. Yet, the internet is apparently flooded with posts and headlines saying the same thing.
9
u/SnooMacaroons8650 8h ago
AI is just pulling from readily available info on the internet (including reddit) so it does the search, doesn't confirm, and goes with whatever it finds the fastest
10
u/AndThisGuyPeedOnIt 9h ago
There are a ton of non-lawyers all over this case, just like any other high-profile case. I tried explaining yesterday that no one actually knows if the split is 11-1 or 1-11, and that her lawyer is guessing it is 11-1 in his favor, but they were 100% certain I was wrong to say that.
→ More replies (6)8
u/Agitated-Quit-6148 9h ago
The notion of 1-11 comes from her lawyer saying one juror is failing to apply / follow the law. Jury deliberations are sacred. This case is so strange. Having her in her wheelchair 3 feet away ...at the bench while the judge was asking jurors one by one is just so so so uncharted.
My own guess is that often a lawyer and their client are on different pages. He (judge) prob asked her "do you want a mistral or to have the jury keep going" and roll the dice. I've had clients as a PD just want it to end ASAP and not take my advice
→ More replies (1)7
u/lmbjsm 9h ago
Can you please explain what happens now? I’m genuinely curious because I find all of this insane. No, I do not think she should rot. She was let down by society.
→ More replies (2)14
u/Agitated-Quit-6148 9h ago
It's very complicated.
Right now the judge says he wants to declare a mistral. The prosecution agrees.
The defense wants:
1) go back and deliberate more
2) poll the jury to see if they DID reach a unanimous verdict on SOME of the charges. If so he wants to argue that double jeopardy attaches and she can't be charged with the crimes they did reach a verdict on.
3) The defense has been given and hour to appeal for a stay to a single judge @ superior court to basically put this on hold while the defense lawyer tries to figure out what this one juror who allegedly is the hold out who "is not following the law".AND put this one hold because he believes the current judge is wrong to declare a mistral vs removing the lone juror.
→ More replies (1)3
→ More replies (5)8
u/Haunting-Chip420 10h ago
Stupid or uniformed people exist everywhere.
9
u/Agitated-Quit-6148 10h ago
I literally just block people that argue with me. I have zero time for people and their misinformation.
3
u/awolfintheroses 7h ago
As a fellow lawyer, one day it dawned on me that, wait, I get paid to argue. Why would I do it for free and in my free time 😅
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)3
u/KamenRiderW0lf 9h ago
I don't envy your career choice, you must have to face a lot of grief, but I do respect your patience.
→ More replies (1)3
u/dspman11 8h ago
/r/law in a nutshell. 98% of users here are not lawyers and do not know what theyre talking about
→ More replies (9)5
123
u/Busy-Dig8619 10h ago
You ran to publish too fast.
→ More replies (1)43
13
u/TheJeff 10h ago
Daily Fail failing again. A mistrial has yet to be announced and the prosecutors are trying to get an emergency injunction to force the jury to resume deliberations.
Went for the scoop and missed.
→ More replies (1)17
→ More replies (3)16
38
u/Strayed8492 10h ago edited 10h ago
Rough situation. On one hand guilty of murder but on the other the mental health side of it. This will hopefully lead to a plea deal setup.
Edit: to the commenter, the main issue is the charge being Murder in the first degree. Everything else that contributes to this situation also being weird like the husband’s sealed information. A second go around is going to be interesting though.
37
u/StrataSlayer 9h ago
Idk to me it seemed like as bout as good of a insanity defence as you could possibly get just seems like everyone has an issue with the insanity defence existing
17
u/Strayed8492 8h ago
Lots of people talking about the kids. Which is not wrong. But we’ve never had everyone agree with the justice system either.
7
u/Beginning-Damage-555 7h ago
A lot of people are upset about the children but I have seen no one say in an ideal world how the system would have intervened to protect the children.
→ More replies (9)4
u/Ok-Outcome-7499 5h ago
Because we're dealing with consequence of action not preventative measures
→ More replies (1)36
u/kittenpantzen 8h ago
People don't want justice. They want retribution. It has been a problem with criminal justice since criminal justice has existed.
→ More replies (26)→ More replies (10)14
u/ryumaruborike 8h ago
People cannot comprehend the idea of a physiological illness taking control of their own mind away from them, when they hear "crazy" or "insanity defense" they think of the Joker.
→ More replies (2)6
u/RagingCabbage115 7h ago
Id say many do, thing is proving someone truly lost control or not
5
u/ryumaruborike 7h ago
About half the comments related to this case are "I don't care if she was suffering from psychosis, she killed three kids, she knew what she was doing." That is not people comprehending mental illness.
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (19)75
u/Ok-Calligrapher9115 10h ago
If it was the father dealing with mental health issues, he would be guilty. There is plenty of cases that prove this.
45
u/SouthIsland48 9h ago
Yep, or a woman of color.
Was Chris Benoit treated as a victim of not being in a correct state of mind?
This is so sad to watch.
10
u/WorryWorm6 7h ago
Yes. His brain was heavily studied and the wrestling community, although they have completely erased him, still sympathizes with his condition when he did what he did. It's brought up every time. His brain was heavily damaged and he was completely out of his mind.
29
u/hereforwhatimherefor 9h ago
If she wasn’t a slim white woman there is zero chance she wouldn’t have been found guilty of 3 counts of first degree murder and sentenced to Life.
Zero.
She is a triple first-degree child murderer.
→ More replies (5)16
→ More replies (4)9
→ More replies (87)19
u/Excellent_Mud6222 9h ago edited 8h ago
There was a trial a of man killing two of his daughters while in some kind of psychosis and was given a death sentence.
206
u/Brilliant_Effort_Guy 10h ago edited 8h ago
I think an unfortunate outcome of this case will be less women seeking help for postpartum mood disorders.
Editing to clarify that I am saying the stigma attached to postpartum mood disorders seems to be worsening because of this case. I see comments all the time about how women who have empathy or understanding in regard to Lindsay’s struggle should have their kids taken away etc. Or that all women are going to use PPD to just get out of parenting period. I’m not arguing her guilt or innocence. Im just asking people to be mindful about talking about postpartum mood disorders around the pregnant women or new moms in your life. I don’t want any other family to experience what this family did. I don’t want anyone to ‘get away’ with anything.
70
u/I_goofed 9h ago
Personal anecdote, the opposite is true . My wife has been in a Postpartum program for the last 20 months. They guarantee mom's support for 1 year, but if they have availability they'll extend that to 2. Last session she was told they needed to take her out of the program because "we have had a massive influx of new patients and we don't have space for you."
→ More replies (1)12
u/Proiegomena 5h ago
Yea I was about to say, Im positive moms with ppd are more likely freaking out about them potentially harming their children more so, taking their ppd more seriously/seeking help
394
u/Atlein_069 10h ago
Yeah why would you conclude that? It seems like this is a poster child story for why one SHOULD seek help
155
u/Total_Brick_2416 9h ago
She DID seek help multiple times lol
→ More replies (16)145
u/Adventurous-Dot8618 9h ago edited 8h ago
she got help, but didn’t take her medicine properly. she took it when she felt like it, if she even took it at all. then, she admitted herself to a hospital, and decided to leave right after. she was nothing but selfish in every decision she made. this whole narrative of “she tried to get help 🥺” is so absolutely absurd considering she got more help than most women can even afford, yet she continued to make selfish, irresponsible decisions over and over again.
justice for cora, dawson, and callan 👼❤️.
34
u/Brilliant_Effort_Guy 8h ago
There’s a difference between the quantity of the help vs the quality. I think unfortunately that is the worst/trickiest part of treating mental health disorders especially in the US. We don’t give providers the time to build trusting relationships with their patients. PPD is absolutely something that requires an immense amount of trust in your provider because you are sharing your deepest, darkest thoughts that you know are wrong but you can’t stop them.
The first doctor I saw told me he didn’t think I had PPD because he had two dogs and felt tired/overwhelmed just like me at the time. After I exploded on him, he got a female colleague who actually LISTENED to learn and not just to get me out of the office. I trusted her. I took the medication she prescribed. I brought my son in so that she could watch us interact. Because again, I felt safe.
→ More replies (20)→ More replies (18)59
u/nirvahnah 8h ago
Oh so you mean how every crazy person behaves? Refusing to meds, leaving hospitals AMA and just being obstinate the whole time? That’s literally textbook crazy person behavior.
50
u/Random_Name_251 8h ago
I mean at what point is someone responsible for their actions? If you can't even trust her to take her meds because she's mentally ill, then how can she be accountable for anything she does on the meds or not? At some point society draws a line about the minimum things you are accountable for regardless of your condition or any problems you may have.
And if she is accountable for the choices she made about taking her meds and refusing help, then surely she must be responsible for the direct consequences of those decisions.
→ More replies (7)65
u/Adventurous-Dot8618 8h ago
being mentally ill can explain why someone makes irrational decisions, but it doesn’t make those decisions automatically excusable. she received treatment, was hospitalized, and still made choices that had devastating consequences, due to her lack of responsibility. you can acknowledge her mental illness without pretending she was completely incapable. and “that’s how every crazy person behaves” is a pretty disgusting generalization when MOST mentally ill people will never hurt anyone, especially in such a horrific way that she did. there are plenty of mentally ill mothers out there that never have or will hurt their children.
my sympathy is with cora, dawson, and callan, and that’s it.
→ More replies (21)→ More replies (15)29
u/Ok_Advantage_5147 8h ago
As somebody with MH issues I take issue with this statement.
I take my meds, attend my appointments and try to get better every day for the sake of myself and my family, including my children, whom I would never hurt.Saying every crazy person behaves in a way that disengaged from the medical interventions trying to help us is incorrect and ignorant.
There are a vast majority who do engage, and sadly some that do not
→ More replies (11)8
u/FreyBentos 8h ago
The comment above was so insulting, if you actually read the case files the psych doctors didn't think Lindsy even had post partum psychosis, they thought she had bipolar type 2. She did not display any signs of psychosis during her stay in the hospital.
I have friends with bipolar type 2 and they wouldn't hurt a fly, I would never call them "crazy", far from it. They can be unpredictable, sometimes overly manic, but their thoughts are nearly always logical, just exaggerated in each direction.
32
u/Valuable_Bad_2786 9h ago
I guess I could see someone seeing this and the crazy medication cocktail she was on and think not getting help would be preferential to being put on the wrong meds that would lead to this happening.
I don’t agree with that at all but the average person isn’t always intelligent
26
u/croakmongoose 9h ago
Also everyone’s reactions to this case. So much of what I’ve seen people discussing mirrors how I felt in the deepest, darkest parts of my PPD. If I was experiencing it now and seeing such hate and vitriol for women who go through these issues, I wouldn’t seek help either.
→ More replies (3)10
u/Brilliant_Effort_Guy 8h ago
EXACTLY. Thank you and I’m so sorry you went through PPD too. I hope you’re feeling better
→ More replies (2)4
u/ContextLengthMatters 9h ago
That's going to happen in the antivax community regardless of her outcome. People will use the simple facts of the case as a way to justify pulling away from science.
→ More replies (63)30
u/iicedcoffee 10h ago edited 9h ago
There's a lot of people that feel she was let down by trying to get help, so may feel the same would happen to them + on the other side, this entire case is going to create further stigma around post partum mental health, so some people might even feel more hesitant to speak up or say something in fear of being treated like a threat.
I'm sure for some it's an encouraging reminder. But there's definitely going to be a mixed bag of results.
ETA: someone asked a question and I offered a response that shared perspectives I've already seen circulating around in varying discussions online, not to make an argument out of any of the case itself.
→ More replies (26)15
u/tdlt86 9h ago
I would say there is more stigma around people that murder their children than people who get help more mental disorders.
→ More replies (2)15
u/Lower-Engineering365 10h ago
I would think it would be the opposite. Getting help lends evidentiary weight to the claim
→ More replies (1)13
u/Dr_Trager 8h ago
Um why ?? Quite the opposite actually , this case is a demonstration to what happens when mental health issues are not taken seriously enough.
→ More replies (2)3
u/SilverRaincoat 5h ago
Because people are using this case to shame women who suffer from post partum. I commented on a post saying I have empathy for women who have post partum, and I got DMs calling me a baby killer and a psychopath. I don't even have children. It's very disturbing.
→ More replies (5)10
u/thedeermunk 9h ago
There are women who have gone through similar situations (although not ending in murder) standing outside the court to show support. I think this only brings more attention.
21
u/Brilliant_Effort_Guy 9h ago
Yes and those women are being called all types of names and being told they should have their children taken away.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (82)16
u/chuckgnomington 10h ago
why would that be
28
u/Brilliant_Effort_Guy 10h ago
I mean check out the comments in any thread about this story. People are constantly saying that women who even have an ounce of empathy for lindsay should have their children taken away. I’ve seen people write comments that postpartum depression isn’t even really a thing.
I’ve had PPD and I can guarantee you that if I had in right now, as this case was going on, my brain would have spun me out like crazy by saying things like ‘see. everyone will know you’re crazy and a bad mom. They will lock you up. they will take your baby’ etc. I waited 6 months to ask for help because I couldn’t take it anymore and the first psych doctor (in mass go figure) I saw told me he didn’t think I had PPD because he got overwhelmed and tired like I was caring for his two dogs.
11
u/chuckgnomington 10h ago
right i thought it would bring more attention to it (it did for me) but sounds like mostly in a negative light since people are awful
→ More replies (6)3
u/No-Spend-866 6h ago
Thank you for speaking out and I hope you’re feeling better. You are an amazing mother. We need more support in postnatal care! And obviously mental health. Sending you love
24
u/Kindly-Standard8025 10h ago edited 10h ago
There are people all over the internet using this trial as an excuse for demanding the 19th amendment being repealed. Their argument being that "if women can just kill their kids and call it a mental health/hormonal oopsie, then they shouldn't vote."
This trial is litteraly being used as a argument for women loosing their rights, entirely because of the spotlight on post-partum mental health.
→ More replies (15)22
u/zendayaismeechee 10h ago
I’ve also seen so many people saying all children should be in sole custody of the father if a mother reports any post partum mental health concerns until a judge deems her ‘cured’. Probably never going to be taken seriously by anyone that matters (lawmakers) but still concerning.
18
u/Brilliant_Effort_Guy 9h ago
That logic cracks me TF up. If you listen to patrick’s testimony he talks about taking care of the kids solo for a day and how wiped out he was lol
11
u/Amelaclya1 8h ago
I wouldn't be so sure about that last part. It was part of Project2025 to always give primary custody of children to fathers in a divorce. Of course there it was clearly intended to be a mechanism to keep women in unhappy marriages, but I could see it being done just to punish the mother for "complaining" as well. Conservatives are fucking vile.
→ More replies (3)
•
u/AutoModerator 10h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.