11 to 1: Inside the chaos of the Lindsay Clancy mistrial

Ana Garcia (0:00)

A word of warning. This podcast explores graphic and disturbing stories and includes some strong language. It therefore may not be suitable for our young listeners or other folks who may find it disturbing. Hello, everyone. This is a special edition of True Crime News, The Podcast. We have breaking news in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial.

A mistrial has just been declared. With us right now is attorney Rachel Fiset, a regular commentator here on True Crime News, the podcast who's been following this case. Rachel, three times the jury went to the judge and said, we can't, we're deadlocked. I mean, it's almost like we could see this last week.

Rachel Fiset (0:43)

I would say three times they said they're deadlocked, plus one time they said one of us is not following the law. That is four times to the judge we're deadlocked.

This is really been as dramatic as a verdict, as a, well, a non-verdict could possibly be.

Ana Garcia (1:04)

Yes. And for anyone who's not up on the Lindsay Clancy trial, this is a mother of three who was charged with first degree murder for the murders of her three babies. The defense has said that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the moment that she strangled the children in the basement of their Massachusetts home. But the defense has said this was calculated, it was premeditated that she sent her husband out to run errands to give her the opportunity to kill her babies. And then she tried to kill herself by throwing herself out of the second story window of their home. She is now paralyzed.

The drama today in the courtroom, Rachel, was amazing because right before the judge was about to call the trial, because it's three times that the juries come back saying we're deadlocked, Lindsay's attorney, Kevin Reddington, said, I need to go to the Massachusetts Supreme Court and ask for a stay so we can examine whether this is an issue having to do with just deliberations or whether, as the jury foreperson had told the judge, shockingly, in a note, that one juror is refusing to follow the law.

Rachel Fiset (2:25)

Unbelievable. Basically, the judge was trying to say mistrial and he said, stop, stop, don't say it, don't say it. We have to get an appellate court involved. And this is drama like I've never seen. This is incredibly irregular. And I think a lot of those irregularities, what we've seen play out in the court room in the last two days relating to this juror, is because defense counsel knew it was 11 to 1

And 11 not guilty by reason of insanity, one guilty verdict. So that was the juror make up in the deliberations. And it is almost highlighting why the law says that no one should know what goes on in a jury room because once we knew that it was 11 to 1, the defense was really just ready to bring it home. He could see his own victory.

The not guilty by reason of insanity was as good as it could possibly get there. And while defense often doesn't mind a mistrial, here he saw it. And so because he knew that, because all of us knew it was 11 to 1, we saw this drama play out in the courtroom, trying to remove this juror, trying to get an emergency stay before mistrial was declared, and watching the judge and defense counsel basically get into arguments on how the jury was instructed and told how to deliberate. This has been fascinating.

Ana Garcia (4:10)

Oh my God, what a case.

The wording of what came out yesterday about this juror was, quote, refusing to follow what the law states. It had to do with reasonable doubt. The jury foreperson had explained that this juror understood that there was some doubt, but in the interpretation of the other jurors was not applying to the law, and that's kind of where this all crashed. But my question to you, Rachel, as an attorney, is that just the nature of deliberations? Or as the defense tried to show, wait a minute, you've got someone who's not following the law, and that's why I want this person replaced, I want the alternate in there, and I want to get a verdict? Or, I mean, when I was watching the Massachusetts Supreme Court justice hearing these arguments literally as quickly as could possibly be doled out because the judge said to the defense, you have one hour, you have one hour to get this stay. And I'm like, oh my god, these arguments are fascinating. It didn't work, didn't get the stay, mistrial was called. But back to the question, Rachel, is that just the nature of deliberations?