The Trial of Lindsay Clancy - Mistrial

0:00The crime desk. The arresting broadcasts. All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I have members of the jury. At this point, I'm going to declare that the jury is deadlocked, and I'm going to declare a mistrial. After five weeks of evidence, 84 witnesses and over a week of deliberations. The trial of Lindsay Clancy has ended in a mistrial. She was on trial for killing her three young children, five-year-old Korra, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callin. She never denied strangling them with exercise bands at home in Duxbury, Massachusetts before trying to kill herself. But she pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to charges of first-degree murder. She claimed that she was suffering from severe post-partum mental illness, including post-partum psychosis. And so she lacked the capacity to be held criminally responsible.

1:00That meant that the jury was tasked with answering the question, was she a killer who knew exactly what she was doing, or had her mental illness become so severe that she lost the ability to control her actions or understood that they were wrong? But they couldn't reach a verdict, and today, judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial. Today, we're covering the dramatic end to one of America's most watched trials, and of course, asking the question, what happens now? I'm your host, Kayla Brantley. And I'm crime-cospondent Rachel Schalb, reporting from Plymouth County Superior Court. Welcome to the trial USA, the trial of Lindsey Clancy. This is episode six, Miss Trial. We'll be back in just a moment. Welcome back. You're listening to the trial USA. So Rachel, you have been in court for over a month now, up in Massachusetts.

2:02The jury came back after days of deliberations. And we heard that moment on the top of the episode that they just could not reach a verdict. And the trial of Lindsey Clancy has officially been declared a mistrial. All the way throughout this entire trial, it has really been emotional and just a really dramatic case. So let's just start off by talking about the reaction in the courtroom when that mistrial was finally declared. So I think because of all of the drama and chaos with the jurors over the last couple of days, Lindsey, her attorney, the prosecution, her family, all the media, I think, you know, going into that courtroom at that moment, we sort of knew what was coming. But the people who really showed emotion were the jurors who have sat through five weeks of testimony deliberated for seven days. You can tell that they are physically and mentally exhausted by this. And, you know, a couple of them, two female jurors actually began to cry when the judge said,

3:07I'm going to have to declare a mistrial, you know, with a pull to face and began to cry. And, you know, you could tell that that wasn't what they wanted, that they really, really tried and that they really wanted to deliver a verdict in this case. And it not be sent back to square one. So you really felt for them in that moment. I think, you know, Lindsey seemed like she was trying to keep it together. She didn't show a lot of reaction. She kind of remained quite almost stoic. Her attorney, Kevin Reddington, who fought tooth and nail to try to get a verdict knowing that it was 111. And that there was some questions about this one hold out juror. All right, Rachel. So we really just need to break down how we got here and the two cases that were presented to the jury listeners to this podcast. We'll remember that all throughout the trial, it was the prosecution's case that Lindsey Clancy was able to make decisions throughout the time that she killed her children and that she was aware and in control of her actions. They had claimed that she had sent her husband Patrick out of the house on errands to create a window of opportunity to kill the children.

4:12We know that after killing the children, Lindsey Clancy then went upstairs and used a knife to cut her wrists and neck. She threw herself from the bedroom window and fell onto frozen ground below, which left her paralyzed form the waist down by the closing argument. Prosecutor Jennifer Sprayg built the case that this was all altruistic suicide. She presented the case that Lindsey killed the children because she wanted to kill herself and wanted to take them with her. Of course, the defense never denied that she did kill her children, but it was their case that her mental health had deteriorated over months to the point that she was so severely ill that she could not control or understand her own actions. They said from the beginning that she was suffering from postnatal illness since giving birth to her youngest child eight month old, Callan, which had culminated in postpartum psychosis. Leaving Lindsey suffering from hallucinations and delusions at the time over children's deaths. It was their argument that Lindsey killed the children because she was suffering from what was referred to as a command hallucination.

5:14We heard that Lindsey claimed that she heard a man's voice telling her she needed to kill the children so that she could kill herself. Lindsey also reported intrusive thoughts of harming herself in the weeks before the killings. Intrusive thoughts which the defense have suggested could have been hallucinations and the first signs of psychosis. Kevin Reddington also claimed that Lindsey was on what he called a cocktail of prescription drugs, which he claimed worse in her condition. He claimed that Lindsey was suffering from undiagnosed bipolar disorder as well and that some of those drugs can actually have an adverse effect on bipolar patients. Of course, we know that a trial, both the defense expert, Dr. Philip Rersnick and the prosecution expert, Dr. Kirk Helbron, included by polar two as part of their final diagnosis. This all built the defense case that Lindsey had deteriorated to the point that she could not be held criminally responsible for her own actions. Hence her plea of not guilty due to insanity. Clancy's family, including her former mother and daughter husband, also testified about her deteriorating mental state leading up to the deaths.

6:16But the prosecution challenged this throughout the trial. They didn't deny that Lindsey was suffering from mental health issues, agreeing that she was suffering from anxiety and depression. But they did argue that she was not so unwell that she was insane. They argue that she still had the capacity to make decisions that she chose to kill her children and therefore should be criminally responsible. And we now know that the jury could not reach a unanimous decision on whether or not Lindsey Clancy truly was so mentally and well that she lacked capacity, or whether she could be criminally responsible for the death of her three children. Now Rachel, we're going to cover some of the dramatic moments over the last few days that have played out during the jury's deliberations. But first we should reference some of the testimony they would have been considering because this trial really became a battle of the experts didn't it? Yeah, that's right. So it really did come down to, you know, which expert on which side you believe more.

7:16So on the defense side, you had two very well regarded experts who said that in their medical opinion, Lindsey Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time of the killings. And so could not be held criminally responsible on the other side. You had three experts for the state that said she was very mentally and well, but they did not find evidence of psychosis and they believed she was in control of her actions at the time. You had opposing experts giving opposing views as to her diagnosis and therefore whether she was responsible at the time of the killings. So one example is from the defense side of things, Dr Paul Zyzel who assessed Lindsey Clancy just 11 days after the tragedy in hospital. He had actually gone to visit Lindsey and allowed her to use his cell phone to call Patrick. It was during that conversation that she told Patrick that she'd heard a man's voice telling her to call the children and herself. Both Patrick and Dr Zyzel testified to that conversation and Dr Zyzel testified that this was a command hallucination, which Lindsey experienced in the throws of psychosis.

8:27We can actually play for you now his assessment of Lindsey. Can you tell this jury sir in your opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty based upon all of what you have reviewed, all of what we have talked about, all of what you have considered as to whether or not at the time of this incident resulting in the killing of these three little kids that she was suffering from a mental disease or defect such as that she lost substantial capacity. Capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her act or in the disjunctive was unable to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law. Yes, tell the jury what your opinion is, please. My opinion is that she did have indeed a mental disease or defect that's a legal construct another DSM 5 one, but she had bipolar disorder with postpartum psychoses. In addition, she was unable to conform her behavior to the rule of law.

9:29And she had no appreciation for the wrongfulness of her act. So Rachel what we just heard from Dr Zyzel it's very clear that he's saying Lindsey could not be criminally responsible, but then you hear from the prosecution that Dr Halburn is essentially saying the opposite. Dr Halburn had testified that Lindsey had demonstrated the choice to kill the kids. Dr Halburn outlined decisions that Lindsey made throughout the 18 minutes she took to kill the children. This included the choice to strangle them where she strangled them, what order to do so using the exercise bands. The prosecution used this as evidence to show that she had the capacity and control at the time. And Dr. Did you form an opinion to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty as to whether or not the defendant was criminally responsible when she killed her children? Yes. And what is that opinion? My opinion, my clinical opinion since I'm not the decision maker here, but my clinical opinion is that she was criminally responsible on January 24th.

10:33And that's of course only two small clips of masses of testimony that all went to Lindsey's mental health and this debate around whether or not she was in psychosis. And of course we've gone into much more detail in some of our previous episodes. So if you want to hear more go back and listen to the start for series. Now Rachel we really need to get into the events of the last few days during jury deliberations. We brought the moments earlier this week when the jury sent the judge a note saying that they were unable to reach a unanimous decision. You've been there this entire trial and of course including this week and it's safe to say that wasn't the last note that they sent. Yes. So obviously on Tuesday was the first time that the jury sent a note saying that they were unable to reach unanimous decision. After that time they'd obviously deliberate since Thursday and the judge sent them back out again. We then heard from them again on Wednesday afternoon so they deliberated for several more hours before coming back.

11:36And once again they said we are at an impasse we cannot reach a unanimous decision. At that point the judge read them the two e-read regas instructions which are specific formal instructions imploring them to try to reach a verdict and really hammering home that another jury and another jury in another trial. Would have the same difficulties so you know really kind of trying to encourage them to reach a verdict. They were sent back out again. That was on Wednesday yesterday was the day when everything just really kind of changed. We heard that there was a jury note and everyone returned to the room and it was a really stunning moment in the courtroom because at that point you know the media was all going in and the DA so the district attorney who had brought this entire case was sitting in the room so it felt like a very big moment. And we also knew that at this point you know the jury's been sent back twice they've twice said that they can't reach a verdict so unless they've managed to reach a verdict unanimously everyone in that moment believed that we were heading for a mistrial at that very moment.

12:42What happened was quite bizarre the two sides went up to the judge and they were all speaking a sidebar and then next thing we know Kevin Reddington is going back speaking to Lindsay and then takes Lindsay up in her wheelchair to the judges bench. Everything is being done a sidebar so we don't know what exactly is going on inside the courtroom and then one juror is brought in one by one until all 12 have been brought in individually to the judges bench asked a brief couple of questions and then they were sent back out they were in for you know say 30 seconds to a minutes and not long at all. And they were brought in they were questioned went back out and then the judge brought them in again gave them another instruction this time there was it was a bit different he was focusing on reasonable doubt and at this stage we obviously didn't know what had gone on it was only after the jury was in a dismissed encouraged to keep deliberating again that in open court Kevin Reddington was allowed to raise an issue and that issue he then raised was that the jury had come back.

13:46The four person had sent a note saying that they were at 11 1 and the issue was that the one hold out juror was not following the law when it comes to reasonable doubt. She had said in the note that that was why they were unable to reach a verdict that that juror had expressed doubts but was not willing to conform to the law. So this was a huge moment because that's obviously a huge accusation to make that isn't just that person disagrees with you. This is that they're not following the law that they have sworn in oath to uphold Kevin Reddington wanted to get a jury to be dismissed or at least brought in for further question. And we do have that clip where they went from side bar back into the court and this was pretty late in the afternoon on Thursday the jury had already been deliberating for days. This was really a major moment.

15:05I'm sorry to have to do that. It does not focus on the issue. It is the question is not sufficient enough. It does not allow any foundation for a motion to remove the juror who refuses to accept your instructions on the law on reasonable doubt. I just spurned the instructions of this court. It's a shame. It's a real shame. And that's why I object to the courts rolling. I request that we have further inquiry. I request that my motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt. Thank you, Your Honor. We have the note from the jury. There's no way to determine what the deliberations are. We have to avoid any question. I have to see who's correct, who's incorrect, or should we attempt to because that's part of deliberations. I think what Your Honor has done by asking each juror if they're able to follow the law and then giving a general instruction on reasonable doubt is appropriate under come wealth versus Ralph.

16:08So we do not have an objection to what the questions or the re instruction. I have an Rachel. Then we move into today, which was this morning when we get back into deliberations. Can you set the scene for us a bit? There was a lot of people here. We all piled into court again. And the judge asked, you know, both sides what their kind of thoughts were on the matter of yesterday. Assistant to Stuart Ernie Jen spray went first. She said that she wanted the jury to return to liberations without any further instructions of what dear. Whereas Kevin Reddington said that more needed to be done. He said, clearly we have a person who under oath looked you in the eye and lied. He was pushing for the juror to be thrown out or to the very least be thoroughly questioned by the judge. That juror told you that he would be able to apply the law to the facts as you asked them. And based on this note from this juror, it clearly and unequivocally indicates that they are basically 11 to 1. And this person will

17:12not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not guilty verdict. When you have a situation where you have not won but two notes that clearly indicates that this individual has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict. He is as the law states, he is not being honest with you at the sidebar. I would go so far as to reluctantly say that the individual has made a false statement under oath to this court. There has to be an issue that is not arising out of deliberations in the facts of this case. But the individual is refusing to apply your instructions on proof beyond a reasonable doubt to allow that jury to return a verdict of not guilty. If I may honor, I just wanted to put on the record that the note does not indicate that this juror lied to your honor when responding. The note indicates that the parties disagree on what is reasonable doubt or what doubt is and how it should be applied. And we are in

18:16no position to judge if the 11 are right or the 1 is right. But there is no indication that the jury is intentionally trying to mislead the court or lie to the court. And then right after that, Judge Sullivan said that getting rid of a juror is only to be done in special circumstances with special precautions. And he did not think there was any need for an inquiry of this particular juror. He also said that by reading the notes from the jury carefully, there was no indication that the juror did not follow the law. Now following this, both the prosecution and the defense had questions for the judge about how he addresses the jury and any notes going forward. That led to this heated moment between Kevin Reddington and Judge Sullivan. I would ask that you not just give them as I described it yesterday, a soft inquiry. You listen to my instructions. I would ask that you specifically direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and re-instruct them on that forcefully. Did he yesterday? Didn't I? Yes. You did he yesterday? You did it soft? You didn't do it forcefully.

19:18I'm asking. What do you want me to do? I want to get a brass band. I read the instruction as written by the SJC. The fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that. I'm not an actor. I've just given the instructions. Well, my point, Judge, simply is that you're kind of glossing over the issue. The issue is this juror will not, according to that note, apply the law of reasonable doubt. And that's why I've requested, you know what I've requested. Right. But it just in case the records occur. I am specifically not glossing over this issue. I have thought about this issue long enough. I know the defendant rejects, but the characterization that I'm glossing over it, trust me. That's not the situation. I've been thinking about this for quite a while. So that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to just give that instruction

20:18as they said, that they have to follow my instructions. I'm not going to reiterate the reasonable doubt at this point. It may come to that again as we go through it. And I'll try and give this with more pizzazz than I gave yesterday, I suppose. So with that, we'll bring the jury back in. And I'll ask the questions. I'll give that instruction and we'll send it back out. Yes. So things did get quite fiery between Kevin Reddington and the judge. You know, Kevin Reddington did not feel that the judge did enough on this matter, but equally laughter kind of broke out when he made the comment about, okay, I'll try to give more pizzazz, even Reddington smirked when he said that. Ultimately, the jury was brought back in and they were just sent back out to deliberate. Now, Rachel, we need to take a quick break here, but we will be back in a second with the moment that the jury came back today with one final note. Welcome back. You're listening to the trial USA. So Rachel, just before the break, we were

21:33talking about the final time that the jury were sent out to deliberate. And of course, not long after they sent Judge Sullivan one more note. Here's Judge Sullivan reading it to the court. All right. And the question is it is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to. Well, let me ask what is the party's position in regards to that question. Your honor. From the commons perspective, since the two of the instruction has already been given and then there was less deliberation after that, I think that it would require a mistrial at this point. To be written. You're under my understanding is that this court has the discretion to have the jury sent back for the second time. The first time that there was a report, we did not treat it as a report of deadlock. We did not instruct them under Tui. We did not give them soft Tui. We didn't give them anything. We just sent them back to deliberate. So technically, we have one report of deadlock that you're on to gave the Tui Rodriguez charge to. I believe

22:38under the statute as well as the case law of this court has the ability to send the jury back. The fact that that jury forpress and wrote very unusually, it is with a heavy heart that we are unable to come to a decision based on the earlier questions that we have, I think that it would be a sound and a wise decision for this court to send it back under the law. Well, I would find that under Massachusetts case line statutory law, the jury did not ask to be sent back, which would be a possibility if they had requested it to be sent back to them. But under the statute in the case law, I don't feel I have any choice but to declare a mistrial. And Rachel, this brings us to one of the most dramatic moments of the trial. The judge asks for the jury to come back in and just before they can, Kevin Reddington stands up and makes one last ditch effort to stop Judge Sullivan from declaring a mistrial.

23:39I want to wait for the jury to give me for raising this issue. I would ask that before you formally declare a mistrial that the court afford us the opportunity to take a two 11 three appeal direct to the Supreme Judicial Court single justice on this issue because of any number of issues that are of concern. Others that have been addressed in the motions, the objections. But I further raised the issue of the American with Disabilities Act. I believe that this is a situation where there is a clear and present danger that this individual for some reason, what it is we don't know, but is taking a position that's intractable, regardless of proof beyond a reason. So I want an opportunity to take an appeal to the single justice if the court afford us that opportunity. How much time do you need to do that? I'd have it filed today and argue tomorrow. Saturday? They would do it on an emergency. Yeah. I mean, I can try to get it until its jury to come back tomorrow. I'm just trying to, I don't care. The reason I'm asking it,

24:44I know, but as they're walking in, you're asking for this. I'm just trying to find out what it is that you're asking for. That's all for us time to file a single justice appeal for this travesty. That's what I'm asking for. I'll give you an hour before we bring the jury back down. I think it's just a request for the state of the declaration of this trial. So I'll hold off for an hour and then we'll come back in in regards to that. Rachel, I have never seen anything like this before in a courtroom. This was truly like an unbelievable moment. So what can you tell us about the court during this time and what followed? Yes. I mean, this whole moment was really stunning because we were just waiting for the jurors to come into the room and it was deathly silent. Everyone was quiet. We all knew what was coming. Then all of a sudden, Kevin Renj instead of and he gave it one more shot. He said, actually, I'm going to file an appeal. That appeal involved going up

25:44to the state supreme court justice to argue to them that this juror needs to be struck from the case because they are not following their oath. They have some sort of prejudice and bias against someone with mental illness. He actually had that in this appeal motion. So Kevin Renj was given an hour to do that on the hour that was filed. But then that obviously then took a bit of time for the justice to go through that. Sitting in the courtroom corridor, it was very tense because at the hour point, the prosecution and the DA all went back into the courtroom, but we were all not taken back in. So we, you know, when it is, we're hearing going on, but it turned out the prosecution was going in to say very much like your hours up because obviously the jury was 111, not in their favour. It makes sense that the prosecution wanted a mistrial at this point, whereas the defence is so close to getting an acquittal and not guilty by reason or insanity. So the hour was up and at that

26:47point, they called a lunch break. So it was just constant emotions everywhere, I think, from everyone constantly on edge. But then it turned out there was actually a Zoom hearing taking place during the lunch hour and that involved the two sides arguing before the justice. She took the matter in the advisement an hour or so later and that was the final moment we were all called back into court. And the judge revealed that the justice had denied the defence's appeal. And basically that was the last argument really that Kevin Reddington could keep making. All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. All right. Members of the jury, at this point, I'm going to declare that the jury is deadlocked and I'm going to declare a mistrial. All right. I just wanted to make a comment. I'm kind of a history buff. And during World War II, Winston Churchill was the prime minister for England. When England pretty much stood against not to Germany alone. And so Churchill, oftentimes, had to talk to the citizens and say, let us

27:55be braced for our duties. I always liked that phrase. And I thought of that phrase when all of you were agreeing to be on this jury, that you agreed to brace for that duty. In each one of you knew how long the case was going to go, you knew how difficult the case was going to be to listen to facts wise, but still you braced for that duty. And I just kind of wanted to ask, you know, I watched every day, day after day, week after week, all of you performing that duty that you braced for. Rachel, let's just get into what this mistrial actually means for Lindsey Clancy. Do we know what the next steps are? So now it's down to the district attorney as to whether they re-try the case. And the district attorney came out gave a press conference and said, you know, they're not making any statement or announcement on that yet. They will do that soon. They will make a decision soon. But in the same breath, he, you know, hammered home in that press conference that

28:56they still stand by their argument that this was a cold and calculated murder. Those were his words. And that they stand by that they don't believe that she did have mental honest to such a state that she was not in control of her actions. Kevin Reddington, when he was asked about the retinal, he's very much saying, I'm ready to go right now. She actually pushed the judge to, you know, let's get a date set. Let's get this in motion. So there's actually a new hearing, a state is hearing scheduled for what is likely to be another trial later this month. And throughout the trial, Lindsey Clancy was staying at Tukesbury Hospital. It's a state operated public health and psychiatric facility located into Tukesbury, Massachusetts. Do we know if she'll return there? Yes. So she will be going back to Tukesbury Hospital. That's why she's being throughout the duration of waiting to go on trial. And you know, that's why she's getting Vanda Clark, suicide watch and psychiatric and physical health treatment. And Rachel, just before we go, you know, we are co-workers or colleagues. I see you around the

30:00office. But for the last seven weeks, including jury instruction, you have been in Massachusetts staying there throughout the week, traveling back to New York on the weekends. And it finally culminated today in a mistrial. You as a reporter being there every day in the courtroom, what does that feel like for you just covering this case? It's not the outcome that I think anyone kind of anticipated would happen. I think, you know, after such a long, grueling trial, I think this has been like very taxing on everyone involved. Obviously, Lindsey Cancy, obviously, Patrick Cancy, obviously both of their families, her family's been there every single day. And the prospect of them having to go through that all over again, it's just quite shocking, you know, that they will have to go through that. I just really fell for them, you know, having her parents have started that every single day, as I say, you know, they've listened to the awful 911 call. They've had to listen to the

31:01autopsy details of their grandchildren. And for the families to have to go through that again. But yeah, I think as a reporter as well, it's very much feels like a bit of an anticlimax to end with a mistrial because, you know, you expect some sort of conclusion. And particularly knowing that the split was 111, you know, it seems like it was so close, but equally so close and not unanimous verdict, you know, it doesn't change the outcome at all. So I think it was this last week in particular, especially the last couple of days, so I think it'd been especially crazy to say the least. I mean, the stuff that was happening with the juror and the four persons saying that they weren't following the law with the constant mistrial, almost hanging in the balance, but then it seems to have been pulled back the last moment. All of those things, it may have been quite unprecedented end to a trial. I mean, myself and, you know, much more experienced journalists who in the courtroom said, you know, things like they've literally never seen these things happen

32:03before where people are calling for a juror to be thrown out because they're not following the law around reasonable doubt. That's something that, you know, I think people haven't seen before. So it is a very dramatic end to what's been a very dramatic and grueling trial. Well, well, Rachel, thank you so much for, you know, being there for all seven weeks and I know it's not the outcome that anyone expected, but, you know, Massachusetts was happy to have you and New York is happy to have you back. All right, that's all for today's episode. Make sure that you are following the trial USA wherever you get your podcasts so that you don't miss an update over the next week on the trial USA Plus. We'll be bringing you more on this case, bringing you expert guests and exploring the larger questions that have come from this trial. The first one is out right now, the truth about postpartum psychosis. In the meantime, you can follow us on TikTok at the Climbedesk, on Instagram at the Childport, or you can email us at thetrialatdenymel.com.

33:08You can send us your questions and reactions to the case by leaving a comment on Spotify or even send a voice note on WhatsApp on 24779-665-7512. Start your message with the word trial. I'm Kila Brantley and I'm Rachel Sharp.