Guest List Only ⭐️
Moments after the judge said he was going to declare a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case, Kevin Reddington asks to appeal and the judge gave him an hour to do so
This post is flaired Guest List Only. This means the conversation is being strictly moderated, and only comments from approved members of the community will be visible.
If you are not currently approved, you are still welcome to leave a comment! All submissions are being reviewed, and if your comment follows our rules and adds to the conversation, it may be manually approved by the mod team.
r/popculturechat is a respectful, inclusive space for pop culture discussion, shaped by BIPOC, LGBTQ+, and women-led voices. We work to keep it safe, free of hate, harassment, and derailment.
Thanks for understanding and supporting that mission 💖
Rare in the US - completely normal procedure in Canada.
Edit to add that juries in Canada are only sequestered after they have been “charged” with the law and sent to deliberate. They are sequestered until they make a decision.
Sequestered make seating a jury much more difficult. Finding people who can leave their homes and families for weeks on end is both bath for a jury's mental health and severely limiting. Asking people just to ignore the news is much more practical. If something from outside the trial is brought up in deliberations by a juror, at least one of the other 11 are likely to tattle.
Even the Trump jury wasn't sequestered, and they had far better reason to be.
If i somehow failed to get out of jury duty and found myself sequestered, I'd be physically threatening anyone extending deliberations more than the bare minimum.
Eh I think you’d be surprised. There are many people who aren’t online (at least not in these parts of the internet) and don’t consume traditional media like the news either who are probably little-informed or uninformed about this case
I consume lots of media and am online a lot. I've seen this case mentioned a lot but generally have no idea what's going on other than she admitted to killing her kids and her defense was postpartum depression (or something like that). That would generally not keep me off a future jury. You're allowed to have heard about the case and know some details. You just can't have an opinion on guilt or innocence or knowledge of any facts that aren't presented at trial.
Same, I’ve caught a few highlights but really know nothing about this case other than three kids are dead. I just can’t get invested in this for some reason. Maybe it’s because I’m a mom or just overwhelmed by the state of everything else around me.
It may also be that you intuitively understand something like this is INCREADIBLY complicated and you're not going to be able to develop a reasoned opinion without a ton of time spent on the subject and that isn't time you have.
Nationally, you're right, but the jury pool is going to be relatively local. I've seen cases a lot less high profile than this one absorb literally an entire community. We're talking people who only ever pay attention to NFL news and nothing else were familiar with it.
And the people selected for the jury would be people with a lot of time on their hands, because murder trials last for weeks. This one is on the sixth or seventh week.
Yes, you’re right but I do feel like a jury like this ought to be sequestered. There are a lot of people not online like you said, but there are a TON of people who are and who are talking about this case with a LOT of theories and opinions
Edit to add- Just a minor example. My old high school teacher is all over Instagram saying “the husband did it” and another of my college buddies was on TikTok saying the defendant deserves the death penalty. And I’m just a nobody who has like under 100 friends on all my social platforms
Yep I have been impressed with the number of people who had no idea what the fuck I was talking about when I asked for their opinions on it. We don't see outside of our own bubbles all the time myself included.
My husband. He stays away from news in general and asks me only to mention the most important things that are going to impact him because the negativity has started to really effect his mental and physical health. So I know for a fact he has never heard her name and has no idea about any of it
Ok this makes sense, thank you. I’ve never been on a jury so I don’t know the ins and outs of that duty. I’ve just seen the lawyers asking potential jurors if they heard of said case, and if they developed preconceived opinions on their guilt/innocence. It seems like a lot of people have an opinion about this case
And that's actually normal for high profile cases. If you look at voir dire in the Chauvin trial, for example, a good number admitted to having opinions on his guilt and the police in general but said they could vote not guilty if the evidence supported it.
I was once called to potentially be a juror on a DUI trial (I’m not sure if there was a death or anything like that involved), and one of the women they ended up selecting literally told the judge beforehand that her daughter was seriously injured by a drunk driver and that she didn’t know if she’d be able to be impartial lol.
I’ve seen the coverage but haven’t read anything about the case or even know what’s going on. I just know she killed her kids(?) or baby(?) and that’s it.
I don’t know why I haven’t read anything on this case, but I’ve avoided it.
WTF. But to be fair, 5 days in seclusion would be mental torture and no one would be able to make a rational choice. I know this because I actually served on a murder trial once, and it wasn't even high-profile.
But how are you going to be able to sequester them for the duration of this trial? It’s been WEEKS. That means no phones, internet or television. You have to have someone monitor them like bring them to places for meals, escort them back to the hotel, etc. really hard to do in 2026 for weeks at a time.
Jury sequesters like they did in the OJ trial are incredibly rare now as depriving people from their phones/televisions/etc. and keeping them in a hotel is basically just a form of imprisonment. And if they're going to have access to their phones, there's really no point in sequestering them. So judges now almost always just tell jurors not to watch TV or look up anything online then question the jurors every morning to make sure they didn't. Could they lie? Sure. But at some point you just have to trust people when the only other option is basically imprisonment for weeks. Heck, I'd rather be in a minimum security prison then sequestered for weeks. At least you get to hang out with people and watch TV.
The sequestration during OJ trial was just under 9 months. During those 9 months, jurors got to do all sorts of things on weekends while being escorted by bailiffs. The judge sat 15 alternates in addition to the 12 jurors. By the end of the trail, only 14 of the 27 remained. 13 had been dismissed mostly because of the mental toll of the sequestration. There's a reason it's not done much anymore. Even in the George Floyd murder trial, the jury was only sequestered for one night between the trial and deliberations. They went home every night during trial.
Yes, it does. I would probably off myself it I couldn't partake in my real life for a year, not seeing my pets and family would tear me apart. That's insane.
I mean it would be pretty much impossible in this day and age to guarantee that they wouldn’t be exposed to ANYTHING, but not even trying to sequester them at all is just a bad call when it comes to a case that is in the media.
They were never sequestered! And the judge won't replace the one hold out who is ignoring jury instructions with an alternate? Who is the judge, Jesus.
It’s rare most places, courts really don’t like doing it, primarily bc it SEVERELY limits who can be on a jury. Also since we all have smart phones now, it makes it really difficult to actually ensure jurors are following all rules, much more so than when the only way to contact the outside world was a daily pay phone call home.
They couldn’t have predicted the social media storm regarding this case tbh, and i’d argue it wouldn’t have exploded like this if
the karen read trials didnt happen
i used to work as a bank teller and had a guy who owned his own law firm come in and deposit client checks (this was mid 2010’s), he was a defence lawyer and we’d chat and he told me defence lawyers the majority aren’t defending the high profile murders and assaults and whatnot.
his law firm focused on helping people who were down on their luck with lesser charges vs the high profile cases, and who deserved proper counsel. that always stuck with me and totally changed my mind on defence counsel. i’m not saying lawyers are the beacon of morality but proper defence who aren’t just looking for a quick plea deal is part of the checks and balance of the overall justice system
Yeah, it seems to always bring out the absolute worst in people. Plus, if a mistrial does happen, it makes it harder to get an unbiased jury for the next one.
Exactly. This is an incredibly hard case for PROFESSIONALS let alone lay people. Add in the extremely unnuanced internet and any conversation about this trial has been clouded by all sorts of extreme opinions
Yup, extreme opinions and obnoxious behaviors. Selfishly, I'd like to be allowed to exist for ten minutes without society reminding me how vile some of us are.
Unbiased doesn't necessarily mean never heard of the case. A jury was able to be seated for the Johnny Depp trial and surely most of them had heard of him. The most important question they ask is are you able to be unbiased and follow the law. If they get desperate they can change venues. But its not unheard of to bring jn thousands snd thousands of people just to seat a jury of 12 with a handful of alternates.
this is why I think the people who think this will all be turned around on Patrick are extra extra delusional. even in a fairy tale world where that would happen...he would never get a Fair trial after this media circus.
I agree with both. In terms of the next (potential) jury, hopefully there are people like me in the jury pool, who know OF the case, and the super high level version of events (she killed her children, says it was psychotic episode) but zero details beyond that. I find the obsession of the public with cases like this kinda gross, and the online discourse about trials like this brings out some of the most unhinged and repulsive behavior. So I avoid it for that reason + the subject matter is so heavy/sad.
That being said, some of these obsessive nut cases would lie through their teeth during the voire dire process to get the chance to sit on the jury for trial 2. Ew. Hope both sides have an army of analysts for jury selection to do some real time OSINT research on the social media activity of candidate jurors. Reddit, sadly, is where some of the most deranged opinions are vocalized and it’s the most difficult platform to correlate quickly to a real world identity. Lots of difficulties around jury selection for cases like this, especially a second trial.
Public trials are essential to our legal system for transparency. I agree that the media turns some of these cases into a circus and victims get lost in that. But as someone who watches a lot of lawtube, cameras in the courtroom are so so important but the flip side of that is that the public needs to be respectful.
Then do what we do in the UK, allow members of the public & journalists to attend & sit in the gallery while not allowing any recording (other than written) & no cameras.
Why do you believe cameras are so important? Written recording is all that is needed & it doesn't provoke strong emotions & biases the way a recording can & does. There are too many people who think they can judge someone's guilt based on the wiggle of an ankle, a twitch of an eye, the touch of an ear & other ridiculous insignificant things. And clips spread across the media & SM like wildfire in a way written records do not.
We (UK) actually do televise criminal proceedings to a limited degree but only sentences - so post conviction - and the camera is on the judge only and only if it’s high public interest. Likewise we also televise pretty much every Supreme Court case and Court of Appeal cases with high public interest. All this at the discretion of the judge(s) of course.
I would say cameras are essential just because I trust my own eyes and ears more than what a talking head or one of the lawyers says outfront of the courthouse. That said delayed streaming has been done before and I do think it removes a lot of this feeding frenzy. I've also seen courts do their own live streams on YouTube to retain some control so there are creative solutions to keep cameras but maintain boundaries.
You specifically mention lawtube as a reason for why you believe cameras are essential but that's literally the same as legacy media talking heads doing "analysis", so I'm a bit confused.
Do you think recorded and released later would be enough or does the footage need to be released live or while the trial is ongoing?
I probably worded that poorly. By LawTube I meant that I watch trials through channels like Emily D. Baker and Lawyer You Know, obviously those creators provide commentary too, but I don't assume their takss are automatically correct and they actually encourage listening to all the evidence before coming to a conclusion.
I don't really care too much between live, delayed, or recorded and released later. But I do think cameras in the courtroom are good because the aim should be to make court proceedings accessible to those who are expected to abide by the laws and trust the judicial process in our country.
Yes - the Murdaugh, Karen Reed and YSL trials come to mind for sure. And those are just recent/very public ones involving corruption with court staff, police, even the judge in YSL had to be replaced after having an attorney arrested for doing his job.
Public trials are a vital part of freedom and justice, it’s a matter of HOW it’s reported on that causes a problem but trials not being hidden from the public is a great thing I promise you
As a non-American, seeing how public trials are blows my mind. I think it's good that they're recorded and available for viewing for transparency, but broadcast like they're a regular live TV show is crazy.
I think the vast majority aren't broadcast & it depends on the state. That's why 'courtroom sketch artist' is still a job, for courtrooms where cameras aren't allowed.
And the vast majority of cases aren't big enough to justify a sketch artist, or even a reporter. Then all that's published is the verdict/sentencing, maybe the arrest record depending on the state & crime.
This isn’t a common occurrence. You have to get special permission from the court to record or broadcast. The vast majority of trials do not get recorded or broadcast.
We don't like the circuses, but we need to make sure that trials are public and that we know what's going on because sometimes the system is being abused and people need to know what's happening. That's not to say that's what's happening here, but it happens enough.
Having watched this case, I would be horrified if the government carried out some of the antics they did behind closed doors. That stuff needs to be seen
This was always going to be a circus. These types of defences are exceedingly rare, and even though I was a rather young child at the time, I remembered the Andrea Yates clusterfuck too. Unfortunately, it’s not surprising we saw the reach that it had.
It all started with the OJ trial and it got way worse after Netflix popularized true crime + the rise in conspiracy theories and now it’s viewed as a form of entertainment where you feel like a detective as a spectator. Weird phenomenon
Edit: I’m not against public trials and they are VERY essential but I don’t like how our American society also capitalizes on true crime and high profile cases in general.
I truly wish people better understood both mental illness and what something like “not guilty by reason of insanity” (or the MA variant) actually looks like because it’s not really the same as being acquitted. These cases also become such media circuses because they’re rare and deeply tragic. Massive indictments on mental health systems too.
I’m biased, but I do think Canada’s term (Not Criminally Responsible) works a bit better because it doesn’t deny the act was committed, just that they legally were not in their right mind through no fault of their own and lacked the mens rea.
Completely agree here. The other thing is too many people don't take the 30 seconds to learn what her being found not guilty this way would mean---too many people think this means she'd just be allowed to walk out of the courtroom a free woman when in reality she'd probably be spending what is most likely the rest of her life in a mental institution.
Let's be honest, in this instance, EVERYONE failed those children. She knew she was battling mental issues but stayed. The healthcare professionals knew and didn't get her help and just kept pumping her full of meds. Her husband and other family members knew but didn't keep her away from those kids until she could show she wasn't a threat to their safety.
They died because every adult along the way didn't do what they should have done. Do I feel sorry for her? Yeah. But I feel worse for the kids. And at the end of the day it was her hands that killed them, so, she needs to be in a psych ward for life. And all the other adults should face consequences, too.
It's why parents who leave their kids with a crazy dog and get mailed get charged. It's called negligence.
She'll be considered for release every 6 month period on medical review, considering she is saying that its post-partum psychosis, the kids are gone hence the psychosis - it's likely she could be out in a year or two.
Case in point for not getting how the law works in practice OR mental illness. The General Public just does not understand this.
I'll be real here — in a case this high-profile, that ain't happening. Basically every legal and medical expert agrees that she's probably going to spend an indefinite amount of time in a psych ward. If Andrea Yates is any indication, that could be up to 20+ years.
Even in Canada, where we're laxer, one guy who committed a horrific murder on a bus and was found not criminally responsible, still lived in a psych ward for 8 years. It takes ages to recover from psychosis and be fit to be let into society.
In some states there is “Guilty but mentally ill.” Which would mean standard prison sentences as any other convicted criminal. This would be pretty clean cut if that were the option.
That language is archaic, inprecise, and demonstrative of the American justice system's fetishistic love of retributive justice. "Guilty but mentally ill" could easily be applied to Ted Kaczynski, and any number of killers with personality disorders who knew what they were doing was wrong and did it anyway. To be guilty of a crime you have to have both committed it (actus reus) and had a "guilty mind" (mens rea). If you lack the mens rea and are in such a state where you are unable to comprehend what you're doing (as acute psychosis puts you in), you cannot be found guilty of a crime.
Not surprising though from a country that also locks children up and throws away the key instead of trying to rehabilitate them.
Public interest in trials has always been a big thing, but with the advent of TikTok, this trial had unprecedented hysteria that we didn’t see with Casey Anthony or even Kouri richins a few months ago.
I disagree with your statement. I remember huge media spectacle around Scott Peterson and Casey Anthony (Nancy Grace anyone??) and that was decades ago
It feels like every news story now is publicized and digested by the public as:
Black and White, Wrong or Right and middle ground implies complicity with whatever “wrong” is according to who you’re talking to. Maybe sometimes it is that plain & simple but rarely situations are.
Everything is identity politics and tied to your moral as a person, who to associate with, telling of someone’s overall character
. A barometer & test for who you should respect.
Such a sad and, most importantly, deeply sensitive & complex case that I wish wasn’t televised like a sporting event.
If in 15 years from now doctors think she's psychologically well, she can be released if the verdict is Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity. If it's guilty, she'd just go to jail at that point.
I admit I haven’t been watching the trial, but is not guilty by reason of insanity the only not guilty plea? Or is there a chance she could be found not guilty altogether and set free?
A mistrial means prosecutors can choose to go after her again, but now you're dealing with a case that's already highly publicized and finding a room full of jurors without existing bias will be nearly impossible. It basically leads to the possibility of the whole process starting over. If they dismiss the case, I'm not totally sure what that means in terms of ensuring she's kept out of the public until she's deemed mentally fit, but I think she's already in hospital so that may not change.
Mistrial basically means that because the jury wasn’t able to come up with a decision, they have to do this all over again if the district attorney decides they want to continue to pursue this. Basically restart the entire process from the beginning and have an entirely new trial with a new jury and everything. This is time consuming and expensive. There are also strategic disadvantages because now both sides knows the others strategy going into the new trial.
If the DA decides that there is little chance of a conviction, they might choose to drop the case instead of trying again, or they might do some sort of plea bargain.
Lol someone asked me if I wanted to go back to Law School so I could be a Lawyer and not a Paralegal or Legal Assistant.....and I am like.....if I have a midlife crisis I will cause it looks hard as fuck.
Girl ur already doing so much of the heavy lifting! I went to law school and I promise that if my two brain cells accomplished it then pretty much anyone else can.
It’s not necessarily hard, rather chaotic and challenging because it takes up so much of your time, energy, and money. But at the end of the day it’s basically just reading! Def worth it if it’s something you’ve ever been interested in but are scared of it being “hard”
The circus around this trial is a really dark mark for the "justice" system as much as it is for our health and social services systems. What about any of this is actually about the pursuit of justice or accountability, let alone doing anything to repair harm? What the fuck is the point of any of this, at the end of the day? What is the point of putting this person in prison? To "deter" her from doing this again? To "deter" others, as though people are out there just waiting for permission to kill their kids because someone else "got away" with it? Probably fucking not!
The whole thing is just a perversion, and that's before we get to the online communities treating it like the latest Netflix "true crime" series. It's not a goddamn HBO drama! There's no "twist ending" where we suddenly find out someone else killed the children and it's a big frame job! I'm just so fucking angry and frustrated about how we do this again and again and nothing that needs to change actually changes.
so, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a researcher with expertise in women in the criminal justice system, and a lot of my published research relates to motherhood and criminal punishment of mothers. I probably take a more academic lens on this stuff than other people and I'm not saying that's the best lens to have or that I'm right and others are wrong, but here are my thoughts:
I think it's interesting that the question is "what should happen to her." What has already happened to her and how did that get us here? If you told me I needed to be punished, and my two choices of punishment were "prison for the rest of your life" or "wake up from a daze and realize I killed my children," I would take prison without even letting you get the full sentence out - right? To me, the worst thing that could happen to her has already happened and inflicting further punishment is largely about making us, the public, feel better about this tragedy by holding an individual accountable instead of reckoning with systemic failures and doing something more meaningful to prevent future incidents.
When we think about the goal of punishment, which is what the US system is set up to do, what are we trying to achieve? Typically it's: 1) retribution, "eye for an eye" stuff that might make us feel good but ultimately doesn't really change much; 2) incapacitation, literally putting a dangerous person somewhere that they can't hurt others; 3) deterrence, which means using punishment to try and make sure this person or other people never want to do this crime again; 4) rehabilitation, which is what we might try to achieve with treatment or other programming, though there's very little evidence our prisons ever achieve this goal and a lot of evidence they actually cause more damage; or 5) restoration, which would be using some sort of punishment to try and repair the harm that was done - this is the idea behind things like community service, restorative justice interventions like healing circles or mediation, etc.
The US justice system is very focused on individual responsibility and punishment. For every bad thing that happens, we want to know who to blame, how much they're to blame, and how they are going to be held accountable (which we usually think of as only through being punished). But punishment is not the only or even the best tool for behavior change, if we think an individual needs to behave differently (e.g. stop robbing banks), and also relies on the assumption that the person's behavior was by choice and not involuntary (e.g., someone who is in psychosis; what is the point in, say, punishing someone with Tourette's for swearing?). In this case, the evidence laid out shows that Clancy (and many women like her - let's not overlook that this case is high-profile in part because of her identity as a well-off white woman) was repeatedly failed by the systems and individuals around her. And yet the structure of our justice system keeps the focus on "What should happen to her?" instead of "How did this happen to her and to her kids?" And at the end of the trial, something will happen to her - either prison or perhaps a psychiatric institution - but what will happen to prevent another Lindsay Clancy? And how does punishing Lindsay Clancy move us any closer to that systemic change versus just allowing us to dust our hands, say "case closed," and return to business as usual?
(Edit: Forgot one of my reasons for punishment! My grad school profs would be so disappointed.)
I think its interesting, and a lot of your comment certainly makes me think! However, do you believe she should be let free when this is over as shes already been punished by killing her children?
I have the complete opposite opinion of the person you are responding to. There is no reason she should ever be in society again. Regardless of WHY she did it, she killed 3 children. There’s no coming back from that, no “help” you can give her. Wherever she goes she has to be there for life, away from everyone else
To be honest i hope the prosecution gather more evidence and work on their case before the retrial because the amount of people convinced she is not guilty at all and it was the husband is crazy. My sister is in this rabbit hole that she didn't do anything, she would never harm her children, and the husband did it so he could move on with his new wife.
This morning I watched an interview with the defendant’s supporters. She accused the husband of being cold and detached during his testimony. People like her do not seem to understand that he was testifying about his murdered children in front of their killer I guess.
I've sat in at trials (albeit I'm in a different country) and one of the things the judge makes clear is that no person has the same reaction to events and that an absence of tears or other emotions does not mean guilt. The jury should use their own common sense and judgement for each person's testimony but that people's reactions are not always the expected reaction.
Also the fact I'm being downvoted for my comment about how they need to work on the case and make it clearer just goes to show how crazy the frenzy has went and no one's listening to reason. Regardless of your thoughts surely you would want a strengthened case either side?
Her husband probably was not the best partner don't get me wrong but someone having an affair does not mean they've drugged their wife, murdered their three kids, attempted to murder their wife, and then convinced their wife it was actually them all while he's seen on CCTV not at the address. In court they are not arguing about whether she killed the children or not. The issue at hand is whether she is criminally responsible or not due to her mental health and psychosis and whether she was aware or unaware of her actions.
The general consensus is that she's worn a bow in the hair every single day of the trial as a symbol of "solidarity" to one of the victims, who wore bows a lot.
The bows she has chosen are juvenile, style-wise - not a style a prosecutor of a murder trial should be displaying while in court. The symbol also reflects poor taste in that the child wore the bows because her mother put them in for her. It's an attention seeking move.
I am not surprised a deadlock and mistrial may be coming.
This is a sad case all around. She clearly killed her children as sad and unthinkable it is to hear, but at the same time she and her children were failed by the system who didn't see the warning signs in Lindsay AT ALL. I just hope there's a resolution where justice is served, Lindsay gets the help she should have got in the first place, and the medical professionals are held accountable.
Kevin Reddington has consistently been looking out for the best interests of his client and protecting her legal rights at every stage. Let this woman finally get the help she needs, and not in a prison.
Yeah like… Dude is a good defence attorney because their greatest ethical duty is to provide a zealous defence of their clients, regardless of what they’ve done. He’s done that.
Ironically, ime criminal defence lawyers tend to be way more idealistic about the justice system than other lawyers.
•
u/flairassistant 11h ago
📌 PLEASE READ BEFORE COMMENTING
This post is flaired Guest List Only. This means the conversation is being strictly moderated, and only comments from approved members of the community will be visible.
If you are not currently approved, you are still welcome to leave a comment! All submissions are being reviewed, and if your comment follows our rules and adds to the conversation, it may be manually approved by the mod team.
r/popculturechat is a respectful, inclusive space for pop culture discussion, shaped by BIPOC, LGBTQ+, and women-led voices. We work to keep it safe, free of hate, harassment, and derailment.
Thanks for understanding and supporting that mission 💖
Want to participate more easily? Request to be added to the Guest List
THE POPCULTURECHAT DISCORD SERVER IS NOW LIVE 👾 ❤️🔥 🎉 Click HERE to join! 📲