Lindsay Clancy trial | Jurors begin deliberations after hearing evidence for 5 weeks

0:00Tonight, Lindsey Clancy's fate now in the hands of the jury. Reaching a verdict in this case is not necessarily going to be an easy task. This, after both sides deliver their closing arguments. You know to a moral certainty. She is guilty. This young lady is not guilty of killing a fruit children, because she was suffering from a disease and defect. We take a closer look at their final pleas to the jury. Plus, what verdicts on each charge could mean. Commonwealth confidential. The Lindsey Clancy trial starts right now. Waiting game has begun. After five weeks of testimony, the jury finally started deliberations in the murder trial of Lindsey Clancy. Good evening everyone. I'm Jason Monahan. And I'm Glenn Jones. The judge reduced the jury from 18 down to 12. However, six alternatives are available in case of an emergency. Clancy's defense attorney was sworn by members of the media after deliberations ended for the day,

1:04but he didn't have a lot to say. We'll go to NBC 10s Mary Marcos joining us live outside Plymouth's Superior Court. Mary, we know the jury spent more than three hours this morning listening to those closing arguments and the jury instructions. It was a lot. It was and both sides tried to boil it down for the jury using pocket change to make their case. They were arguing that it was a fake suicide. Two lawyers using quarters to tell the jury two very different versions of what happened three years ago. And I'll take this other quarter now. And explain to you why we got into the superficiality of the wounds that she wanted to kill herself, but her natural instinct to live was fighting against that. Prosecutors and the defense gave closing arguments about whether Lindsey Clancy should be held criminally responsible for strangling her three children with exercise bands before trying to kill herself. Quite a number two. What a Patrick Clancy testified to.

2:11They were nodded around the next. Those children don't stay around someone's neck on their own. You have to pull them. And you know they weren't nodded. Patrick never testified that there's not they were nodded. So I'll take this one. Another major part of the argument, Clancy's claim that a male voice commanded her to do it. Investigators speculated that a psychiatrist told her to say that. You've also got manipulation of all those eyes up, told Lindsey what to say, say that you're hearing voices. We've never said that he told the defendant what to say. Not one witness, not one piece of evidence. The only person that said the doctors, I sell that we were trying to say doctors, I sell told her to make up the voice is defense counsel. Clancy faces anywhere from life in prison without parole to being committed indefinitely to a psychiatric hospital. The jury will be back here

3:11tomorrow to continue deliberating. Live and put with Mary Marko, Sympathy C. Tim Boston. Mary, thank you. Joining us tonight on our legal panel is former prosecutor Mark McLean and attorney Margo Lindauer. Welcome to both of you. Glad to have you both here. We've got a lot to get to. The jury has five verdict options to choose from, which makes me believe at least this could take a while. So while we wait, let's take a look at the charges they need to sort through. Other than a flat out knock guilty, jurors have to decide whether Clancy is knock guilty by lack of criminal responsibility. Margaret, maybe you could just start by elaborating on what that means and what sentencing could entail here. Well, not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility means does, Lindsey, did Lindsey Clancy know right from wrong? Did she appreciate her acts, right? At the time, the crimes were committed and the burden is 100% on the Commonwealth to prove that. That's very important. The burden of proof. And I think that for that particular charge, the Commonwealth did hammer those points home. They remember they stressed the rationality on the day of the crimes

4:15were committed. The acts were committed. That's January 24th and how she made the phone calls to the GPS tracking. But I think one of the things that was really key that she honed in on is if she really did hear the voices, the voices didn't tell her how to do it, when to do it, where to do it. So that involves rational thinking. And I think that's one of the keys that the jury will have to really consider when deciding whether she really knew right from wrong at the time the crimes were committed. So that's important. You're basically proving the point. It'll be very hard to get a unanimous verdict on something like not guilty by reason of insanity. The most serious charge she's facing is murder in the first degree, Margo. Absolutely. And the prosecution also kind of hammered home that she was able to conform her conduct throughout the day to the law, right? She was able to drive on the street. She was able to take her daughter to the doctor. She was able to have to speak to the doctor. She was able to call the restaurant. She was able to call CVS. So that plays into you think that the most serious charge because it would be three counts, one for each child.

5:20Murder in the first. You want to talk about murder in the second? Yes, second degree murder. What are we dealing with here, Margaret? Well, we're dealing with you take the really the mail-assout of it. It's it's it's murder that's not murder in the first degree. That's technically the definition. But I think Reddington wanted to hear that the lesser included here, including the manslaughter because it will take, it will help the jury think if they really are leaning towards a guilty, it will possibly give them some options. And maybe if they can't decide, they'll go with not guilty by reason of well, not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility. You know what, the manslaughter charge was a bit of a surprise. I think when you look back to the outset of this case, so let's walk you through what the Massachusetts law says about that. Whoever commits manslaughter shall, except as herein provided, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or by a fine of not more than $1,000 and imprisonment in jail or house of correction for not more than two and a half years.

6:21And Margot, I guess this is really interesting because it was introduced as an option by the defense. And I remember in the read case, they also did something similar and that was the charge that the jury convicted on. Yeah. And so this is really interesting and it brings us back to the read case. And a lot of people are confused about why attorney Reddington might have done this. I would be one of them. Right. And this idea is, well, maybe if it is leaning towards a hung jury and they can't come to a consensus about first degree and they can't come to a consensus about not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, maybe manslaughter becomes kind of the lowest common denominator. That's not really how it's supposed to be. But Reddington is providing different options as a way to represent, as he's representing his client. Right. As a former prosecutor, Margaret, can you just tell me a little bit about what you saw on closing with the prosecutors? Well, I was really surprised and I thought they nailed it and I was worried for them because I

7:23didn't think they were doing the best job ever. Right. So a lot of people say this was the strongest. They felt the prosecute strongly. As long as they they've been and I think, wow, the the ending is where they really nailed it. And they left the jurors. Remember, we jurors are going to be focusing on those victims, those child victims, left the jurors with that vision of the poor victims being left on the floor by the mother and really discarded discarded like discarded toys. And then she's able to rationally go upstairs, figure out how to and her own life. You know, she tries it with the knife and then she ultimately jumps out the window. But they were very methodical and I liked the tone of Sprague too. We heard it. Because yeah, the tone was calm, cool, collected compared to the impassioned Reddington. But then when she needed that passion, she pulled it out. Just have to go on record as saying her description of mental illness was way off base, though. I mean, they were trying to sell a ticket of if you look fine, you are fine, which is a stigma that still sits with mental illness. That's why they

8:26played the video from the Museum of Science. That whole idea that you can pull it together and have control over that, which goes back to responsibility. Absolutely. I think the prosecution's closing was, I agree, the strongest I have seen with some really severe gaps. So I think them picking up the coins that Reddington left was powerful. I remember that. I think them talking about Lindsay as someone who suffered from a mental illness, while I agree with you, JC, that they got it wrong, was the first time that I heard them say that. Well, made her human. Right. Right. And distinguishing between having a mental illness and also committing a crime. Right. You can have a mental illness and be guilty of committing a crime. That is different than being in a psychotic state and committing a crime. All right. There was something that caught my attention during closing arguments that I wanted to bring up here for the panel. Judge William Sullivan actively stepped in during closing arguments.

9:29It happened once for each side. Here's the clip. Until this jury, why are we spent a week showing that she has no witness counsel addressed the jury. Please say you heard him talk about Andrea Yates about how she heard voices to kill her children for months. She tried to kill herself twice to avoid harming her children. It is said that was all accurate. Let's move on from that. All right, Margaret, you've literally witnessed 20 times more trials than I have. Have you seen that? Or maybe just putting the context, the rarity of that if it is indeed rare and whether it was appropriate in your view? I think it was. I like Judge Sullivan and he was just trying to, he tries to control the courtroom in here. I mean, I think he did it evenly once to each side. So he's neutral there. But I think he had to stop especially the prosecution for going

10:30on and on about Andrea Yates because I think she took that a little bit too far. And then as far as Reddington, Reddington seemed to be, he loved pointing out whoever is in the crowd and enough. All right, enough of that addressed the jury. So, I think I was right. Did you go back to the coins for a minute, the quarters? What is that? Theatrix? Does Kevin Reddington always do that? And the fact that the prosecutors could flip it and take those coins back? I mean, almost the choreographed. They seemed ready. So many attorneys are former theater kids, right? That didn't know that. Yeah. Yeah, he was. And that was a danger. And so, and so this idea of performing your advocacy and knowing what's going to land is part of effective closing. So I'm not, I don't know if Reddington does this all the time. I imagine he does similar things. He is trying to condense this very, very long trial into some very simple facts. And doing so in a visual way, having four quarters, four issues, four times that he is alleging

11:37that the prosecution overstepped or misrepresented the facts is something that is going to stay with the jury. And alternatively, that prosecutor picking those quarters up and saying, nope, not today is also very powerful. Yeah, I don't think he's getting that money back either. No, we have a viewer question that relates to a possible verdict and we want to get that answer for today. Karen wanted to know if the jurors for this trial know that Lindsey Clancy will be committed to a mental health facility for an indefinite amount of time if they find her not guilty. Judge Williams, all of it, address that directly this morning. Take a look. If the defendant is found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, the district attorney or another appropriate authority may and generally does petition the court to commit the defendant to a mental health facility or to bridge water state hospital. So, Margot, did it surprise you that he gave that information to the jury ahead of their deliberations?

12:38Because it sounded like the kind of thing that could impact the way they deliberate, based on knowing what happens once they deliver the verdict. I wasn't surprised. And frankly, I'm relieved, right? It is providing information to a jury. The jury are not lawyers. They are not experts. And this is a very confusing case in that when someone hears not guilty, that typically means no, the defendant didn't do it or the prosecution didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant in fact did do it. And gets to go free. And gets to go free. And that is obviously very different in this case. And I think the judge being very clear that no, the not guilty does not mean that Lindsey goes free. It means that she goes back to Tuxbury Hospital or to Bridgewater State Hospital for an indefinite amount of time. And by the way, it would be many, many, years if not the rest of her life. Margot and Margaret, thank you so much. Don't go anywhere, though. We're not done just yet. We're taking a closer look at Kevin Reddington after the break.

13:39He didn't hide his feelings toward the prosecution during those closing arguments. We'll talk about that when Commonwealth confidential returns. Over the years, I've met people whose lives were changed forever in a single moment in my new podcast before and after. I explore what happens after the decisive moment. Personal, powerful conversations with Colin Kaepernick, Jeremy Renner, Gabby Giffords, and others. Join me wherever you get your podcasts. Before and after with Lester Holt premieres Monday, September 14th, follow now to listen completely free or subscribe to Dateline Premium to unlock new episodes early. She's acting like a human being trying to exist, but they go through the records and they want to get those dates and use them against her manipulation. Say that you're hearing voices. Think about how ugly that is. They would have, you know, she killed him first,

14:46cruelly because she didn't like him. That is repulsive. Kevin Reddington made it abundantly clear. He didn't like the way prosecutors tried this case. We're back now with Marwick McLean and NBC10. Court Ruins, Iter Suo O'Connell has joined us as well. So, Sue, that was my take from watching it on YouTube. And earlier today, when I heard you describe Kevin Reddington's closing as a little bit rambling because, of course, in this case, he set himself a very high bar. I wonder if his personal passions about the way that this case was tried somehow made him in precise in that closing because it was filled with emotion. It was, but I also think he was speaking to jurors, right? After I thought about it a little bit after we talked this morning, he knows what those people on the jury do for a living, right? There must be somebody on that jury who was anti-government, right? And that was the message. Anti-government, anti-government. We didn't talk a lot about the mass state police investigation in the trial because it would already determine that Lindsey Clancy did it. So, why would he bring up

15:48how terrible the investigation was? Because most people, maybe he thinks on that jury, don't trust the mass state police, so we wanted to bring that up. So, I think it might have been rambling a little bit to us from the outside, but I absolutely believe he knows what every juror that could possibly be on that jury does and thinks. And he gave every single person there a little something in order to take with them into the deliberation room. So, I think that closing wasn't meant for us. It was meant for the jurors on the jury. With the props. Right. Just out of your ass. The tokens. I think of them as, I call them a prop attorney, but these tokens to remember things, right? The coins that they put out. Also the entire trial, like holding up poster boards and showing, you know, the drawer and the Apple watch. I think it did say this will be a case you will never forget an awful one that Don Forcelade is going to stick with them after the jury left the room to begin deliberating. Judge William Sullivan took a moment to commend the lawyers. Take a listen.

16:50You may not be aware how difficult and tough it is to try a case like this. It's emotionally taxing. It's intellectually challenging. It's physically exhausting. So, I just wanted to commend all three counsel for their work and their efforts in this case in this trial. jurors weren't there for that, but Margaret, is that in your experience typical? It's not typical, but I think Judge Sullivan is a stand up guy and of course he's going to do it and I truly believe what he said that both sides presented a great case, especially a great closing argument. This was hard content as well and there had to be a real level of sensitivity that was executed in this as well. All right, now that the jury is streamlined for deliberations, we know the gender breakdown. Three men, nine women, they'll decide Lindsey Clancy's fate, six others will serve as alternates. So, tell us a little bit more about the four women and whether or not you think

17:51the fact that there are three times as many women on this jury advantages one side or the other. Yes, you know, definitely the number of women on the jury. Every time that we had to hear about what the male experts didn't understand about giving birth or postpartum or any of that, every single one of the women who made it to the jury were making faces about this. So, the female experience and then the male testimony, I think, is really going to have an impact. The four woman is, I believe in her 70s, she looks like an academic to me. She was sitting closest to the witness box and she took notes but she didn't take consistent notes. There are some people just act like stenographers and they sit and they write, write, write, write. She took notes, she would look at the witness, she would engage with the witness, listen to what they'd say and then just one of us would think, wow, that's interesting, she would write that down. So, she's going to have a very robust notes but not, you know, overwhelming, I know I hear

18:51from a lot of lawyers, you don't want them to have too many notes because they can really derail. And I think she's probably going to leave them if I, my guess about her is correct, is going to lead them through an academic examination of what the, the evidence is that they really have to look at. So, I think it will be thorough but I'm hoping it's not going to be like a look at every single bit of evidence over the next week. Well then I'm going to throw it to Margaret for a quick answer on how long do you think it will take for jurors to return a verdict? I think until next week like maybe Wednesday, Thursday because you know I was a juror at 1.2 believe in that as a lawyer, I was chosen and we actually methodically went through each witness and all the evidence and we compared notes. So, I think here they also have these victims, the beautiful children victims and I think to do justice for the victims, they are going to go through as much evidence as possible and compare the experts and you know talk about the voices, who do we believe but I think it you know after all said and done, I think there might be a divide and it could be a hung jury.

19:55Getting the sense you agree. Yeah, no, I absolutely. It's a really high bar to hit here for the prosecution, you know, they are the government. No reasonable doubt, right? And I just by walking all these jurors for this number of days, there's just a few of them on there who I don't think are sympathetic to the prosecution's case. Okay, thank you very much. Margaret Sue, as always, thank you for joining us. Commonwealth Confidential will be right back. You heard about the three kids. Korra wanted to be a doctor and a mom. Dawson wanted to be a firefighter. Halim never got the chance to dream. Who knows what future he would have dreamed for himself. That is Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprig talking about the

20:58victims in this case, Lindsay and Patrick Clancy's three children. She spoke of them shortly before wrapping up closing arguments and a reminder that the reason that they've taken this, the Commonwealth has taken this into the court. It's to find justice for three of these three beautiful kids, whatever the jury determines is justice. And we never tried a loose side of that hero in Commonwealth Confidential. The oldest was five year old Korra. She was named after the first baby that Lindsey delivered as a nurse at MGH. The middle child was Dawson age three, who his father says loved watching Paw Patrol. And the youngest was eight month old Callan, described by everyone as a happy baby. How you can find justice with any of these verdicts, I don't know. And to remind her, though, we do want you to let you know that if you're pregnant or a new mom and you're struggling or you're in an emotional crisis, the National Maternal Mental Health Hotline provides free confidential support 24-7 in English and Spanish. The number there, 8-3-3-8-5-2-6-2-6-2, you can text

22:02or call. And if you or someone you know is in crisis called 9-8-8 to reach the suicide and crisis lifeline, you can also check out 9-8-LifeLine.org. Stay with us for a continuing coverage of jury deliberations in the Lindsey Clancy trial. When a verdict is announced, we'll carry it for you live right here on NBC 10 Boston. We'll keep an air out for any questions from the jury as well. If you have questions, we want to hear from you. You can submit them by email to commonwealth.confidential at NBCUNI.com.