Lindsay Clancy's Case From the Only Seat That Mattered

**SPEAKER_1** (0:02)
This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Dre.

**Tony Brueski** (0:09)
Lindsay Clancy verdict. We're getting hopefully closer to something, a conclusion of some sort. And we're going to be discussing this in depth today. What went on in that courtroom? Not just what we saw on cameras, on the videos that we've seen, but what was it like mere feet away from Lindsay in that room, from the jurors, from the family who was supporting her, from the prosecution that was trying to take her down? Bob Motta is going to be joining us shortly to give us that insight. But the breaking moment or breaking news of the moment, I guess I should say, as we're coming on the air to you this morning live, is that the jury came back this morning saying, surprise, we're deadlocked.
And this happens in a lot of cases. This is not the first time that a jury comes back and says that and then gets sent back, because that's exactly what the judge did. The judge sent them back and said, work a little harder. See if you can figure something out. And that's where we are sitting as of right now. Joining me to begin this discussion, Robin Drake, retired FBI Special Agent, Chief of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program and Master Class Instructor extraordinaire. Well, the link in the description to go check that out, that is launched now. You can learn from Robin on Master Class now. No shit. I know. It's pretty cool.
Let's begin. I mean, are you surprised, Robin, that we're sitting here? What are we? This is day three, four? What are we at?

**Robin Drake** (1:52)
Well, I had to count up, but I turned the TV off when we did this. I could be wrong. Yeah, four. It's four.

**Tony Brueski** (1:57)
Day four of deliberations and we do not have a verdict. Your thoughts?

**Robin Drake** (2:03)
I think it's good, believe it or not. And I think Bob, when he comes on, I listen to Bob a lot. Matter of fact, and even one of the comments here by Bryan Bravo Candy Betch, we listen to each other a lot. And even with Jennifer Coffendepher on, she's a good friend of all of ours. And we text a lot and we talk a lot about each other's points of view and flesh them out. And so even when Bob comes on, I remember we've covered a lot of cases with Bob. And he hates it when there's a quick, oh, there he is. Bob, I'm speaking for you for a sec. I love it. I'm going to finish my thoughts so then you pick up. Bob hates it when the jury comes out quick, means they didn't do their job. And so Tony asked me the question, why I think about the jury still being in deliberation. I said, that's a good thing. It shows they're actually doing the hard work. And this is a hard work case, no doubt. Bob, what do you think about that?

**Tony Brueski** (2:51)
Here we are.

**Bob Motta** (2:52)
You guys are aware that they come out and deadlocked, right?

**Robin Drake** (2:55)
Just talked about that.

**Tony Brueski** (2:56)
Just said that, so that's what the reactions we're making right now. Judge sent him back in.
From your experience here, what does this mean? What are your thoughts?

**Bob Motta** (3:06)
So the way that it works in Massachusetts is when the jury sends out a note saying that we're deadlocked, mostly deadlocked, they'll do what they call kind of like a soft jury charge. All right. So before they do what's been referred to as a dynamite charge, an Allen charge, and in Massachusetts, called a two-way Rodriguez charge. It's a much more thorough charge to the jury to say, look, we understand it and it's written out.
The way that the legislature and the appellate courts have looked at the two-way charge is that they recommend that the instruction is read exactly as it's written. So when that happens, and the judge has to have found that there's been thorough and deliberate deliberations or do and thorough deliberations by the jury before they'll give that heavy duty two-way charge because the argument, and there's a lot of esoteric arguments about these charges and forcing the jury to go back and to basically bend their will of the way that they feel deep, deep down, even though the instruction says, we're not asking you to go against your conscience, okay? We're not asking you if you have a strongly held belief to put that aside in order to compromise just to come to a verdict, but the thing kind of speaks for itself.