What Lindsay Clancy's Jury Did After Being Secretly Filmed

SPEAKER_1 (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 Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Dreeke.

Tony Brueski (0:18)

Here we are, the Lindsay Clancy trial. As of our recording here, we're still with a jury that has not come back with anything. Very likely going to be hung. We're going to kind of tackle the conversation from that direction. But again, anything is possible here. But reading the tea leaves, the Lindsay Clancy trial is asking the hardest question in criminal law. Can a mother who killed her three children be held responsible when her own brain was the weapon used against her? Six weeks of testimony, more than 80 witnesses, psychiatric experts who looked at the same woman, and some came to opposite conclusions. Now, after days in deliberations, 12 people have sent notes to Judge Sullivan, indicating they are deeply split, making a hung jury look increasingly inevitable. Joining us today, Eric Faddis, defense attorney, former prosecutor, to talk about what a potential hung jury would mean for Lindsay Clancy, whether this case would get tried again, and what it tells us when the system built to deliver justice stands on the brink in delivering no answer at all. Along with me, as always, my co-host, Robin Dreeke, retired FBI Special Agent, Chief of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program.

Eric, the jury has 80-plus witnesses, or they've heard from 80-plus witnesses, 300 exhibits, days in that room, and they've already sent notes saying they're struggling to reach a consensus. The judge has now read them the Tuey-Rodriguez charge, which basically tells them no future jury is going to have better evidence than they do, and they still appear very deadlocked.

I'm not honestly shocked by this. I think a lot of people have said this is going to be probably where it goes, considering the ether and the temperature in the room outside. It's a good gauge of what a jury room is going to look like. But they didn't have access to social media. They didn't have the conspiracies running wild in their heads every day like we have. Are you surprised at all? What's your thoughts that we're sitting here with what looks like is going to be a hung jury?

Eric Faddis (2:29)

Gosh, not a huge shocker to me, Tony, in part because of how polarizing this case has been. You know, when we talk with our family, we talk with our friends, colleagues about the case, there's not a middle ground. It's usually people are on the extremes of one side or the other. And so the jury is kind of a microcosm for society at large. And so that polarization may be going on back there. Folks have probably dug in their heels at this point in this stage of the deliberations. And I think it's reasonably unlikely that they're going to change their positions. However, I have seen it before.

Robin Dreeke (3:08)

You know, Eric, with that, you know, I'm just running my own thought experiments because, I mean, we're all right on this one. This has been the most polarizing case we've ever covered. And it's pretty profound about how, like you said, how many people are on this. I can't imagine, especially with the coverage that's going on, you know, the jury's supposed to sequester themselves and not pay attention. Hard to imagine they have, but in any event, so say it goes to retrial and they try to sit another jury, it's hard to imagine a scenario where it doesn't happen again. So in my mind, and this is what my question to you is, do you think they're going to press more for some sort of plea deal to avoid what they probably see as inevitable? And not just in this case, is that generally what happens in cases where it gets this kind of severe notoriety or maybe this is a landmark case or just because it's risen to this level?

Eric Faddis (3:59)

Robin, it's not uncommon at all for the attorneys, even during trial, even during deliberations, to be thinking about, hey, is there some sort of resolution that we might be able to come to? Because both sides have tremendous exposure. If Lindsay Clancy is convicted, she goes to prison probably for the rest of her life.

If the prosecution loses, that's a tremendous black eye when you have three dead kids and you didn't do a great job. And so could both sides sort of come to the table and be like, hey, is there a way that we can sort of both get out of this relatively unscathed with some plea to a lesser whatever? Those discussions happen frequently during trial and even during deliberations.