Lindsay Clancy's Holdout Left WHAT on the Table?!

Tony Brueski (0:00)

This is The Big Breakdown, a long look back at some of the biggest stories we're covering for you at the Hidden Killers Podcast and True Crime Today. This is Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski.

Tony Brueski (0:21)

Kevin Reddington wanted to be back in court.

Well, today, as of this recording Tuesday, to ask the judge to end the Lindsay Clancy case. If the judge refused, he wanted to start picking another jury the following Monday.

That's what he initially wanted after they got the mistrial. It was, okay, well, let's get right back to work. I got to appreciate the work ethic in Kevin Reddington without a doubt, all right? This one didn't work. Let's keep going. We have to wait, though, to discover what the DA is wanting to do first. What are the possible paths forward here for Lindsay Clancy? We're going to get into all of that in this piece. Your thoughts in the comments section on Substack and YouTube. The links are in the description or right below this video. If you'd like to start commenting. So that was his request after Friday's mistrial. After weeks of testimony and seven days of deliberations, he was ready to go again almost immediately. Kevin Reddington is no spring chicken, but my God! This guy's got the gusto and the willpower of someone half his age, putting it lightly. Judge William Sullivan slowed that timetable down. He talked about a possible trial later in the fall with schedules still to be worked out. So yes, another trial is a real possibility. I understand the reaction. Are they seriously going to put this family through all of that again? Reddington is trying to get the prosecution stopped before that happens. District Attorney Tim Cruz has to decide whether his office will keep pursuing this as this goes forward.

Cruz hasn't announced a decision to retry her yet. Clancy's three murder charges remain unresolved. You could hear how close Reddington believed he had come when he spoke about a Levenger's favoring acquittal. That's his account of the split. From his point of view, he persuaded almost the entire room and one person had kept his client from being acquitted. Of course, he wanted to hang on to that jury. I mean, think about getting that close, then having to explain to your client that you're still facing the possibility of starting all over again. We just went through this, this horrific multi-week experience in court of having to relive all of the worst moments of your life. And some of you are like, she deserves it.

Tony Brueski (3:07)

She should have to do that.

Tony Brueski (3:11)

And some of you are like, oh my God, the woman had a break from reality so severe that she thought it was a good idea to end the lives of her children. She's living in the horror reality of that. As long as she breathes, she wants to be in an institution for the rest of her life because she knows she's not well. Why do we have to keep taking her out of the cage and poking her with sticks? What are we getting out of that? Are you teaching her a lesson? Don't kill your kids. We poke sticks at you.

This will teach the next one. Yeah, that always works as you're about to fall into a fit of psychosis. You go, wait a second. I shouldn't get into that state of psychosis because the last time it happened to someone, it didn't work out so well and her name was Lindsay Clancy. Let me stop my mind from deteriorating so much that I fall into a state of psychosis and do horrible things. Let me just put a roadblock up and stop that from happening.

Oh, you can't do that? Oh, if you can't do that, then should we be handling this as if you can? As if it were a calculated choice on her part?

Let's go back to the holdout. The complaint about the holdout deserved detention. The 24-person reported that the juror had acknowledged doubt, but wasn't applying it to the verdict as the law required. Reddington wanted further questioning. Sullivan said the note didn't establish a refusal to follow the law and pointed out that the jurors had said they could follow his instructions. The defense's emergency request to the state's highest court failed, and the jury was then discharged.

I would have wanted that concern examined carefully, too. Being the person who disagrees with everybody else doesn't automatically make you wrong. Refusing to follow the judge's instructions, though, would be another matter. Sullivan did not find that established or doesn't mean it wasn't happening. That just means the judge, within the confines of the note that he got back, didn't have that clearly established. We can question his handling of it without pretending we know everything that happened in that room. Now, Reddington wants Sullivan to look at whether the prosecution ever gave the jury enough evidence to convict. You'll hear this called a required finding of not guilty. That's the request he told the judge he wanted to argue. The judge has to ask, even taking the evidence at its strongest for the prosecution, could a reasonable jury find that the state proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt? A finding that the evidence was legally insufficient could end the prosecution on those charges. That would be a huge result for the defense without having to persuade another jury. That's a tough argument to win though. Sullivan has to apply that standard even if he personally finds the defense persuasive. He can't just add his vote to the 11 Reddington described and call it an acquittal. Clancy's defense has acknowledged that she killed Cora Dawson and Callan. Her lawyers argue that postpartum psychosis left her without criminal responsibility. Prosecutors maintain she knowingly planned the killings. Her mental state at the time is the issue that would be fighting all over again. The prosecution had to prove she was responsible under the law, beyond a reasonable doubt. So when someone asks why the defense didn't prove she was out of her mind, it's a problem with the question. The prosecution still has to prove its case. You can be horrified by what happened to these children and want a very hard look at whether that burden was actually met. For example, prosecutors called a pharmacy manager and a restaurant hostess who had spoken with Clancy by phone that day. Both said they noticed nothing unusual about those conversations, as if the restaurant manager and the pharmacy employee are supposed to somehow be experts on, you know, radar-ing psychosis through a phone call.