Tim Cruz Called Lindsay Clancy's Case THIS After the Mistrial

SPEAKER_1 (0:02)

This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Green.

Tony Brueski (0:08)

Obviously, the Lindsay Clancy case has reached a massive legal crossroads following the stunning mistrial where the jury reportedly hung 11 to 1 in favor of Not Guilty. The ball is now entirely in the court of Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz. The defense is putting on a media master class to pressure the state into dropping the case, leaving the prosecution with an impossible choice, drag the shattered family through another highly publicized second trial, or concede defeat on first degree murder charges for a mother who killed her three children.

Joining us to discuss where this goes next in the prosecution standpoint, Eric Faddis, defense attorney, and Robin Drake, retired FBI Special Agent, Chief of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program. Eric, put your former prosecutor hat on for a second here. 11 to 1, one hung jury leaning towards not guilty. It's a catastrophic misread of the room by the state. When a prosecution team gets back to the office after a blow like that after this long weekend, how do they autopsy their case? What was the fatal flaw? How they tried to sell this and the jury was that far in the other direction. They can't be looking at this going, I think we did a good job, guys. Let's do that again.

Eric Faddis (1:29)

Exactly. The conversation is not, oh, gung-ho, let's set the new trial for two weeks from now. I can't wait to get back after this and do this again. No. Instead, they're going to be talking about, wow, we have some real concerns. We have an extremely serious loss of three children.

And we're the prosecutors. We're supposed to protect the community, seek accountability for crimes. That's on one side. And then on the other side, how are we going to get there? What do we have to change? I think the prosecutor's tone in the beginning, sort of vilifying Lindsay Clancy, came to bite them in the butt later when the evidence just didn't really match up with that, that she was manipulative and all of these things. A lot of folks are saying that's not what the evidence showed to them.

But then, you know, you can't also just drop it and take the black eye. I think you begin some negotiations and you say, hey, you know, we can bring this again and your client could go to prison for the rest of her life forever. Or maybe there's some sort of alternative that everyone can live with. There is a lot... Go ahead, Robin.

Robin Drake (2:30)

No, I was just saying, I guess that's why Cruz hasn't come out yet with what they're going to do next because they're probably talking behind those doors saying, you know, coming up to a conclusion. And so now let's just do the playing it forward saying they can't come up with a resolution to not go back to trial with a plea, you know, signing a plea deal.

Do you think the prosecution then use the same two trial attorneys that they used in that one or do they move on to different people?

Tony Brueski (2:56)

Bigger bows next time, though.

Robin Drake (2:57)

Bigger bows?

Eric Faddis (2:59)

Yeah, a couple of things.

Robin Drake (3:00)

Or is it bench thin? I don't know.

Tony Brueski (3:02)

Everybody gets a $50 certificate declares before every day of trial.

Eric Faddis (3:07)

Yeah, I wonder if they're, you know, it'd be kind of crummy to be the new guy in that office and be like, hey, we got a new file for you. This trial is going to be reset. We want you to handle it.

You know, that would be pretty difficult. But one thing too, Robin, is it's just speculation. But I can't help but wonder if the prosecutors began those discussions with Reddington saying, hey, is there some kind of alternative resolution? And that prompted a statement like the one Reddington made where he said publicly, we're not taking one day of jail. Maybe that is a message during those negotiations to try to gain some leverage in there. I wouldn't be surprised. Those kinds of theatrics happen all the time.

Tony Brueski (3:48)

Yeah, I guess I want to ask you about that, how the sausage is made here a little bit. Behind the scenes, there's negotiation going on, correct? Very likely, at some point, there will be. It's, you know, or some dialogue to continue this forward, whether it's happening now or might be happening at some point.

And that dialogue will go back and forth. How different is that dialogue behind the scenes of both parties, the defense and the prosecution, trying to come to some sort of a conclusion here versus what's being presented to the public on Good Morning America or wherever Reddington's giving an interview or anybody's talking for that matter, where they're going to be grandstanding and really pushing their side of the case. And the other side is crazy for wanting what they want. Where, okay, both sides are coming out pretty strong for their case to the public, but behind the scenes, are they likely a lot more in line with trying to figure out a resolution here than we're feeling out here? Or is it really very much dependent on the case?