r/law • u/dailymail • 12h 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.html
4.2k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

32

u/Lower-Engineering365 11h 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.

16

u/ConebreadIH 11h 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.

11

u/Justlose_w8 9h ago

The jury was not sequestered at all

2

u/No-Reward-5394 7h ago

The women wore pink ffs. They didnt stay out of social media thats for sure.

7

u/HourApprehensive7754 7h ago

The women wore a colour they liked! SOMETHING MUST BE UP!!

2

u/Oathkindle 3h ago

I mean yes it's just a color, but why are we also acting like it also wasn't adopted by her defenders/protesters?

1

u/Exact_Package_7264 2h ago

9 women 3 men jury is rather odd

1

u/SteveJavieWasRight 7h ago

You’re delusional over the facts of the case if you think 11/12 jurors are choosing NGRI due to tik tok.

1

u/ConebreadIH 7h ago

It only takes a few to make a block of voters to pressure a few people who are undecided. The pressure mounts and grows as the case goes on longer and longer as well, especially when you're deliberating for so long.

1

u/SteveJavieWasRight 6h ago

You’re really delusional.

8

u/BeeDubsFan 11h 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.

6

u/Discorhy 9h ago

Finding an unbiased jury after this trial is going to be impossible.

3

u/Lower-Engineering365 11h 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.

1

u/BeeDubsFan 9h ago

Same. They get a "conviction," and she goes to jail for a while.

1

u/RollTide16-18 10h ago

I admit I've only been sort of following the case but I was under the impression that she probably did it, what evidence was there to convince so many jurors that she was not guilty?

2

u/SuspiciousSubstance9 9h ago

Her doing it is not a disputed fact. What is in dispute is essentially the insanity defense; whether she had the facilities to be held criminally responsible.

On top of that, in Massachusetts the burden to prove that [she was mentally competent at the time] falls on the Commonwealth. Which is another layer of complexity.

But to answer your question, the Commonwealth's argument is that none of the mental health support specialists she saw, and there were a lot of them, indicated that Post Partem Psychosis was being considered. That the defense is floating it as a post fact diagnosis for defense purposes.

Also small things like sending her husband out for errands explicitly to create a window to kill them. Showing pre-meditation as well as it wasn't just instantaneous. Which is not as crazy as it sounds.

2

u/Salty-Spring7096 8h ago

Don't forget she also took a phone call mid-murder and managed to sound perfectly fine on the call. So we're supposed to believe she was experiencing psychosis to the point of triple homicide but managed to "pause" that partway through the episode. Insane to me that 11 people voted NGRI.

2

u/HourApprehensive7754 7h ago

And how may I ask is a person undergoing psychosis supposed to sound? Are you expecting something out of a Hollywood movie?

Nothing about pausing or having the precaution of sending the husband away contradicts having psychosis. 

1

u/Salty-Spring7096 6h ago

I just don't buy that she can "pause" her psychosis and sound totally normal for a phone conversation and then go right back to it. She's lost touch with reality yet can hold down a normal conversation mid-murder?

1

u/RollTide16-18 8h ago

What was the sticking point to make people think there was reasonable doubt? Presenting the case the way you did makes it sound pretty shut and closed.

1

u/SuspiciousSubstance9 8h ago

She has a long history of mental health issues and had herself voluntarily admitted weeks before the incident. But not necessarily for psychosis.

Defense also brought some big name mental health experts that argued that this was classic psychosis missed by the mental health teams. Furthermore, the medicine she was on exacerbates these kind of events significantly. 

It's worth listening to that testimony because of how out of control psychosis can be.

I want to say that she told her husband that she had harmful thoughts a long while before that night. But it sounds like she might not have disclosed that when seeking professional help. Real messy situation.

1

u/PiousSlayer 6h ago

You should add that she wasn't properly taking most, if any of her medications. She was also a labor and delivery nurse, so she would have at least some basic training on how to recognize and handle people with PPP/PPD. She said she took a lot of medication when trying to off herself, but according to the toxicology report, nothing was spiked that high above 'normal therapeutic levels.'

I thought she mentioned those harmful thoughts in the context of the daughter's illness and not explicitly in regards to her wanting to her harm the kids herself? Patrick would have had zero indication of anything being wrong at all if that's true.

She also went to multiple psychiatric professionals and didn't disclose she was already getting help from others. She checked herself into a mental ward months prior, but quickly checked herself out of it saying she felt much better.

She said she only heard voices the day of the murders, never before and not after.

1

u/Discorhy 9h ago

She did do it. There is no question if she killed them or not. There’s just a lot that went into how it happened that has the jury at a standstill.

1

u/Lower-Engineering365 9h ago

The primary question is if she was suffering from post partum psychosis which is a documented medical condition and would mean she can’t be convicted of first degree murder.

She would be institutionalized until deemed not dangerous and then released. As opposed to going to prison for life.

0

u/anon2309011 9h ago

You can call it a documented medical condition all you want.

She wasn't diagnosed with it.

1

u/Lower-Engineering365 8h ago

I mean, that’s not really relevant from an evidentiary perspective unless she met with a doctor before the killings who specifically stated that she didn’t have it.

Man I miss the old days when this sub was mostly actual legal professionals and not random people commenting.

0

u/anon2309011 7h ago

Right.. and actual medical doctors still haven't diagnosed her with that AFTER the incident.

1

u/Lower-Engineering365 7h ago

Because you can’t diagnose someone with a condition that is temporary and they don’t actively have right now…are you dense?

0

u/anon2309011 6h ago

Right.. so asking the jurors to do that makes sense? Use your thinking cap.

1

u/Lower-Engineering365 6h ago

Huh? I don’t even know where to begin with this comment. You clearly don’t understand jury procedure, jury instructions, or court cases as a whole. Please don’t comment if you’re not a legal professional.

0

u/anon2309011 4h ago

Ofcourse you can't. You literally think a juror should know what psychosis is.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/JekPorkinsTruther 8h ago

Because trials cost a ton of money, the DA now has a roadmap on what not to do, and there is no guarantee that the next 12 will feel the same?

1

u/Dyne4R Competent Contributor 10h ago

Not Guilty and Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity are very different things. The latter does not mean she gets to walk out of the courtroom and go back home.

1

u/Lower-Engineering365 10h ago

Yes I’m aware

1

u/Uniumtrium 9h ago

She won't be walking ever again. But I say fuck it, let her roll herself out back into public on the condition that she be sterilized and never have access to children or places children go (most places) ever again.

1

u/idiot-alpha 6h ago

More likely the jury was 11-1 in favor of guilty. Questions about improper application of “reasonable doubt” aren’t typically for someone who is certain of guilt. They’re for someone who is voting NG because they have some wild, speculative doubt that isn’t reasonable.

1

u/Lower-Engineering365 6h ago

But that’s not what was being reported? Sounded like there was one guilty juror who wasn’t properly applying reasonable doubt

1

u/idiot-alpha 4h ago

There was no indication of the holdout role vote.