What Was On The Phone Outside Lindsay Clancy's Courthouse

**Tony Brueski** (0:01)
This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Dre.

**Tony Brueski** (0:08)
The Lindsay Clancy trial continues to be one of the most heartbreaking and emotionally exhausting cases we've ever covered. Right now, we're watching a jury struggle in real time, deadlocked after days of deliberation. By the time you're watching this, we very likely will have an answer, and that answer may be a hung jury. Trying to untangle the devastating reality of postpartum psychosis versus premeditated murder. Vanessa Stakes inside the courtroom, if they weren't high enough, the circus outside just breached the perimeter. A 56-year-old woman was arrested outside the Plymouth courthouse this week, accused of secretly filming the jurors as they left. She told reporters she just wanted to see Lindsay. But police found deleted videos of the jury on her phone. Eric Faddis is with us, defense attorney, former prosecutor, to help us discuss this along with Robin Drake, retired FBI Special Agent, Chief of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program.
It's a madhouse. I don't know another way to put it. Every time we see the coverage outside of a trial these days, it reminds me of my days working in radio outside of a concert, where you'd have your tent outside, and sometimes you'd have a promotion going, come by, win a t-shirt. It feels like that. And that's weird to me when you're talking about three dead kids and this atmosphere, but it is what it is. I mean, we can criticize it all day. People are very up in arms about this. They're passionate. Passion's not a bad thing, but when it gets misdirected, when it gets crazed, when it gets dangerous, when it gets expository of people who are just trying to do their jobs like jurors showing up for their duty being filmed, it gets a little scary. The immediate threat, the deadlock. Eric, this jury was already struggling towards a potential deadlock and feeling the immense weight of this case before this one was arrested in the parking lot. The judge actually had to question them one by one about before they could resume deliberations. Practically speaking, I mean, how does an outside disruption like that push an already fragile, exhausted jury towards, you know, a decision of some sort? And, I mean, we'll get to the fallout of what that could possibly mean, depending on what that decision is.
But how do you react to that as either a prosecutor or a defense attorney when something like this occurs?
Sure.

**Eric Faddis** (2:39)
So there are a number of issues at play. One is possible juror intimidation. Another is a juror's perception that someone might be intimidating them, even if that wasn't the original intent.
You know, look, these jurors, it's such a high-stakes case. You know, we have three dead children and they've got a horribly difficult decision to make. They didn't sign up for this. And they want to keep their identities anonymous because think about the backlash that could come from their decision. Either way, there's extremists on both sides who could lodge threats and God knows what. And so, I think it's a significant intrusion into the integrity of the jury system.
And I worry that these jurors might be concerned for their own safety. Who's going to out me? Who's going to post a video of me online? And then if I let this lady off, is somebody going to come to my door and not be too happy about that? Those are some very real concerns. And I think they also give rise to a possible appellate ground if there is a concern.

**Tony Brueski** (3:37)
Yeah, that's what I'm wondering about. I mean, the judge immediately asked them all, polled them all, basically, you know, said, did this woman's, did she affect you in any way, shape or form? I mean, basically, a line of questioning was done and swore them all back in after the event. They all have answered that are back in the jury room. No, we're good.
That's lovely and all. But does that make a damn bit of difference? Should whatever verdict comes out here, and let's play some scenarios. Let's play this scenario. They find her guilty. Let's say they find her guilty, and three weeks later, two weeks later, a day later, whatever, some time later, one of those jurors does an interview with somebody, and something comes out of their mouth to the effect of, yeah, I voted for that because I was afraid for my safety, and for whatever reason that that they've thought that decision would actually keep them as safe as they could. May not be what they fully believe, but they were pressured into it because of that action. Wasn't another juror, wasn't Becky Hill going to another precinct and weighing in. It was this event. And even though they told the judge, I'm OK, I really did feel this way. What does that do to a verdict? Even though it's already rendered and they're sworn in.