Sept. 1, 2026
!!!BREAKING!!! Killer Mom Trial: Jury DEADLOCKED
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed This is a breaking story: Jurors in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial told the judge that they are unable to reach a unanimous decision. He responded by telling them to keep at it. But for how long? The judge still has another option before declaring a mistrial.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Tuesday, September 1st, and a breaking news update. They are deadlocked. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. The jury in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial has just reported to the judge that they cannot reach a unanimous decision. They came back in this morning. We told you about to start their fourth day of deliberations. They came into the courtroom today. fairly uneventful, just like they have so many other mornings. The judge asked them a few questions to make sure they haven't seen anything that would influence their decision-making and sent them back out, and we wait. At that point, they had deliberated 17 hours, so they went back in at about 9 a.m. About 10.15, they sent a note to the judge, that note saying that they are deadlocked hopelessly and cannot reach a unanimous decision. So at this point, they have deliberated 18 hours, but say they cannot or do not need to deliberate further. They sound pretty sure that they cannot come up with a unanimous decision. Now, the decision they are trying to make, so much talked about, of course, whether or not Lindsay Clancy was sane or criminally responsible for killing her children. She, of course, has said that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis, a voice told her to do it, and that is why. There has been so much testimony, doctor versus doctor on both sides, expert versus expert, having to do with postpartum and mental health for women. The jury clearly is having a difficult time with deciding whether or not this woman should be held criminally responsible for what she did to these three kids. A reminder, these kids were five, three, and eight months old. and she strangled each of them. And then she tried to slit her throat, and she jumped out a window. She has a long history, as a reminder, a long history of mental illness. No one is doubting that. The question is, how mentally ill was she? Was she actually in psychosis? And if she was, is she criminally responsible at all? So the options for the jury back there, they're dealing with first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, not guilty by reason of insanity, and not guilty. Obviously, we all, everybody's in agreement, she killed the kids, so not guilty's not on the table. Four other options then. First degree, second degree, manslaughter, or not guilty by reason of insanity. You would have a difficult time thinking, right, folks, that first degree murder is the thing they're hung up on. Is there somebody in there, in that jury room, that is keeping them deadlocked because they're saying, no way in the world I'm voting for anything else other than first degree murder.
00:02:55
Speaker 1: Who knows?
00:02:56
Speaker 2: Don't know how likely that is. But if you do that, you're saying she had she was under no influence of any drugs or any mental illness. She is just a woman who did this on her own. Don't know how high of a bar you think that is, but that's option one. If you go down a second degree in manslaughter. It's hard to think you're getting held up. If you were to go with manslaughter, you would probably go with second degree. If you went with second degree, you'd probably be okay with manslaughter. What I'm saying is it appears... Doesn't this appear that this is a debate in that jury room the same as the debate is happening on X, on TikTok, at our dinner tables, on our podcasts, and everywhere else, whether or not this woman was... sane or not. How responsible is she for what she did to these kids? Not guilty by reason of insanity. Some people think that is absolutely bonkers to even consider. Manslaughter at least gave them the option of saying, you know what, she's somewhat responsible, even though we know she didn't get good care, she was on all these drugs, and she was mentally ill. That gave them some wiggle room. They can't get everybody in that room to agree to that even, to manslaughter. So that means there's somebody in there that wants, what, more? And there's somebody in there that wants less, potentially, than that. My goodness. So this was the judge just a short time ago. Walking in, he called them all back in. Again, every time they do this, the judge gets a question. He has to summon all the attorneys to come back, call court back in session. bring the jury in, and then they address the issue. So here he was just a short time ago, and he didn't take long. This is what the judge said to the jury when they walked in.
00:04:48
Speaker 1: Members of the jury, I've got your question, and the question is, after many hours of deliberation, we are unable to come to a unanimous decision. I brought you back out because I know that this was a long trial.
00:05:03
Speaker 2: All right?
00:05:05
Speaker 1: I know there were over 80 witnesses. There were over 300 exhibits. But because of that, I'm going to ask you to go back out, keeping in mind all of the instructions that I gave you, to go out and to continue your deliberations at this time. All right? And so with that, I'm going to ask you to go back out. Like I said, keep in mind the instructions I gave you, reviewing the evidence, and I'd ask you to resume your deliberations at this time.
00:05:36
Speaker 2: Okay?
00:05:37
Speaker 1: Thank you.
00:05:40
Speaker 2: And that was it. He didn't talk them through much. He didn't explain anything further. He didn't even commiserate. He didn't comfort. He just said, I need y'all to go back at it. And you can understand why. The possibility, the prospect of going through all of this again. Reddington said it the other day, the defense attorney, like there's going to be 16 more people out there. We're going to have to put through this process all over again. It was difficult. The last couple of weeks were focused more so on testimony from doctors, from the professional psychologists and psychiatrists. But the first one, two, three weeks of this trial were tough to stomach. Autopsy photos of children, the actual bands that were put around their necks were in the courtroom and being held and being displayed. That was very difficult testimony to hear about how long it took the kids to die. This is hard stuff. And I know this judge, and you know this jury, this family, there is nobody in that courtroom that wants to do this all over again. So this judge is going to do everything in his power, everything he can, to get them to come to a conclusion. Now, what are the options? As I sit here, it is 10... what, it's coming up on 11 o'clock on the East Coast. So that means that, what, two hours? This is going to put them at, what, 17, 18, 19 hours. They're almost at 19 hours now. If they go to lunchtime, that will put them at 21 hours. If they go the rest of the day, it'll be 23 hours that they have deliberated. What's the judge going to do? We don't know. And what does he have the right, the discretion to do? He can tell them to keep going back and keep going back, but at some point he has to call it. When that's going to be, who knows? That's a judge's discretion. It's hard to imagine he's going to have them so early in the day that they came out and said, we got nothing, to send them back and make them stick around the rest of the day without some kind of update or something he gives them to help guide them along. That would be hard to believe and certainly be hard to believe that they're going to go back there and keep talking end the day and then come back tomorrow morning, I'm saying this day could be it in this trial one way or another. The judge does have one other option here. He can, more commonly, we hear it as the Allen charge in cases, but the Allen charge is essentially instruction he can give them. That is controversial because it sounds like he's encouraging them to change their minds. But it's an instruction that's given oftentimes in courts when juries are deadlocked, when they're having a hard time, to, hey, here's a way to do it. But when you hear it, it almost sounds like, hey, be open to others' opinion and be okay with changing your mind. It's how it comes off, and it is controversial. We have that in a lot of places all over the country. But in Massachusetts, they have their own, it's called the Tui Rodriguez rule, I believe it is, Tui Rodriguez, after two cases they had. But it's a similar thing, essentially telling them, go back, be open, be willing to listen, and essentially be willing to change your mind. Now, I do believe the attorneys would have to sign off on that before. But the judge, nobody's asked for that yet. The judge hasn't agreed to give it yet. But that at least is an option that he could have to try to encourage them to get back there and keep at it. Now, stay here. I do want to tell you, if you've noticed here on Amy and TJ for this episode, Ropes and I have done every single Clancy trial update together. You're not going to believe the reason that she's not here now and why I almost didn't make it. Stay here. All right, we continue here on Amy and TJ. Jury deadlocked. Judge sent them back in, told them to keep at it, to try. But they say they cannot come up with a unanimous decision in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. We are staying very close, watching this thing. I have live streamed. It's live feeds all over the place. You should see our studio right now, literally looking at five screens. Three of them have the trial on. Now, Robes and I have been watching this every day, live streaming, watching it live. Even if we can't watch it live, obviously, it's all on tape, on video now, so we can go back. So we've watched almost every single word of this trial. So here we are at the end. And so we actually had two very pressing appointments that needed to be made. And we kept delaying them and delaying them because we wanted to get to the end of this trial. So we made those appointments for today. Because we thought, surely, we're probably safe and not going to have an issue. So sure enough, this morning, coming into day four, I had to be at a foot appointment. And as I was in the seat having my foot doctor put a needle in my foot, I had my phone in my hand and I'm watching... the jury come back into the courtroom. And I said, you got to be freaking kidding me. Robes, off at her appointment as well, said, you got to be freaking kidding me. So as soon as we step away for just a moment, here they come and there's some action. It's not the actual verdict, of course, but that is why Robes is not here on this particular episode. And you know she's pissed that she's not. But she's going to be back in just a little bit, so we will be back at it. And we are keeping a close eye. Folks, you can keep an eye on our feed today. I don't know at this point much else we should be putting up besides clancy updates, but keep an eye on the feed, folks. But we always appreciate you sticking with us and trusting us along this journey that has been five-plus weeks. And will it end today with a verdict? Will it end today with a hung jury? And with that, folks, we'll always appreciate you. I'm TJ on behalf of my dear Robach. We'll talk to you all real soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Tuesday, September 1st, and a breaking news update. They are deadlocked. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. The jury in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial has just reported to the judge that they cannot reach a unanimous decision. They came back in this morning. We told you about to start their fourth day of deliberations. They came into the courtroom today. fairly uneventful, just like they have so many other mornings. The judge asked them a few questions to make sure they haven't seen anything that would influence their decision-making and sent them back out, and we wait. At that point, they had deliberated 17 hours, so they went back in at about 9 a.m. About 10.15, they sent a note to the judge, that note saying that they are deadlocked hopelessly and cannot reach a unanimous decision. So at this point, they have deliberated 18 hours, but say they cannot or do not need to deliberate further. They sound pretty sure that they cannot come up with a unanimous decision. Now, the decision they are trying to make, so much talked about, of course, whether or not Lindsay Clancy was sane or criminally responsible for killing her children. She, of course, has said that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis, a voice told her to do it, and that is why. There has been so much testimony, doctor versus doctor on both sides, expert versus expert, having to do with postpartum and mental health for women. The jury clearly is having a difficult time with deciding whether or not this woman should be held criminally responsible for what she did to these three kids. A reminder, these kids were five, three, and eight months old. and she strangled each of them. And then she tried to slit her throat, and she jumped out a window. She has a long history, as a reminder, a long history of mental illness. No one is doubting that. The question is, how mentally ill was she? Was she actually in psychosis? And if she was, is she criminally responsible at all? So the options for the jury back there, they're dealing with first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, not guilty by reason of insanity, and not guilty. Obviously, we all, everybody's in agreement, she killed the kids, so not guilty's not on the table. Four other options then. First degree, second degree, manslaughter, or not guilty by reason of insanity. You would have a difficult time thinking, right, folks, that first degree murder is the thing they're hung up on. Is there somebody in there, in that jury room, that is keeping them deadlocked because they're saying, no way in the world I'm voting for anything else other than first degree murder.
00:02:55
Speaker 1: Who knows?
00:02:56
Speaker 2: Don't know how likely that is. But if you do that, you're saying she had she was under no influence of any drugs or any mental illness. She is just a woman who did this on her own. Don't know how high of a bar you think that is, but that's option one. If you go down a second degree in manslaughter. It's hard to think you're getting held up. If you were to go with manslaughter, you would probably go with second degree. If you went with second degree, you'd probably be okay with manslaughter. What I'm saying is it appears... Doesn't this appear that this is a debate in that jury room the same as the debate is happening on X, on TikTok, at our dinner tables, on our podcasts, and everywhere else, whether or not this woman was... sane or not. How responsible is she for what she did to these kids? Not guilty by reason of insanity. Some people think that is absolutely bonkers to even consider. Manslaughter at least gave them the option of saying, you know what, she's somewhat responsible, even though we know she didn't get good care, she was on all these drugs, and she was mentally ill. That gave them some wiggle room. They can't get everybody in that room to agree to that even, to manslaughter. So that means there's somebody in there that wants, what, more? And there's somebody in there that wants less, potentially, than that. My goodness. So this was the judge just a short time ago. Walking in, he called them all back in. Again, every time they do this, the judge gets a question. He has to summon all the attorneys to come back, call court back in session. bring the jury in, and then they address the issue. So here he was just a short time ago, and he didn't take long. This is what the judge said to the jury when they walked in.
00:04:48
Speaker 1: Members of the jury, I've got your question, and the question is, after many hours of deliberation, we are unable to come to a unanimous decision. I brought you back out because I know that this was a long trial.
00:05:03
Speaker 2: All right?
00:05:05
Speaker 1: I know there were over 80 witnesses. There were over 300 exhibits. But because of that, I'm going to ask you to go back out, keeping in mind all of the instructions that I gave you, to go out and to continue your deliberations at this time. All right? And so with that, I'm going to ask you to go back out. Like I said, keep in mind the instructions I gave you, reviewing the evidence, and I'd ask you to resume your deliberations at this time.
00:05:36
Speaker 2: Okay?
00:05:37
Speaker 1: Thank you.
00:05:40
Speaker 2: And that was it. He didn't talk them through much. He didn't explain anything further. He didn't even commiserate. He didn't comfort. He just said, I need y'all to go back at it. And you can understand why. The possibility, the prospect of going through all of this again. Reddington said it the other day, the defense attorney, like there's going to be 16 more people out there. We're going to have to put through this process all over again. It was difficult. The last couple of weeks were focused more so on testimony from doctors, from the professional psychologists and psychiatrists. But the first one, two, three weeks of this trial were tough to stomach. Autopsy photos of children, the actual bands that were put around their necks were in the courtroom and being held and being displayed. That was very difficult testimony to hear about how long it took the kids to die. This is hard stuff. And I know this judge, and you know this jury, this family, there is nobody in that courtroom that wants to do this all over again. So this judge is going to do everything in his power, everything he can, to get them to come to a conclusion. Now, what are the options? As I sit here, it is 10... what, it's coming up on 11 o'clock on the East Coast. So that means that, what, two hours? This is going to put them at, what, 17, 18, 19 hours. They're almost at 19 hours now. If they go to lunchtime, that will put them at 21 hours. If they go the rest of the day, it'll be 23 hours that they have deliberated. What's the judge going to do? We don't know. And what does he have the right, the discretion to do? He can tell them to keep going back and keep going back, but at some point he has to call it. When that's going to be, who knows? That's a judge's discretion. It's hard to imagine he's going to have them so early in the day that they came out and said, we got nothing, to send them back and make them stick around the rest of the day without some kind of update or something he gives them to help guide them along. That would be hard to believe and certainly be hard to believe that they're going to go back there and keep talking end the day and then come back tomorrow morning, I'm saying this day could be it in this trial one way or another. The judge does have one other option here. He can, more commonly, we hear it as the Allen charge in cases, but the Allen charge is essentially instruction he can give them. That is controversial because it sounds like he's encouraging them to change their minds. But it's an instruction that's given oftentimes in courts when juries are deadlocked, when they're having a hard time, to, hey, here's a way to do it. But when you hear it, it almost sounds like, hey, be open to others' opinion and be okay with changing your mind. It's how it comes off, and it is controversial. We have that in a lot of places all over the country. But in Massachusetts, they have their own, it's called the Tui Rodriguez rule, I believe it is, Tui Rodriguez, after two cases they had. But it's a similar thing, essentially telling them, go back, be open, be willing to listen, and essentially be willing to change your mind. Now, I do believe the attorneys would have to sign off on that before. But the judge, nobody's asked for that yet. The judge hasn't agreed to give it yet. But that at least is an option that he could have to try to encourage them to get back there and keep at it. Now, stay here. I do want to tell you, if you've noticed here on Amy and TJ for this episode, Ropes and I have done every single Clancy trial update together. You're not going to believe the reason that she's not here now and why I almost didn't make it. Stay here. All right, we continue here on Amy and TJ. Jury deadlocked. Judge sent them back in, told them to keep at it, to try. But they say they cannot come up with a unanimous decision in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. We are staying very close, watching this thing. I have live streamed. It's live feeds all over the place. You should see our studio right now, literally looking at five screens. Three of them have the trial on. Now, Robes and I have been watching this every day, live streaming, watching it live. Even if we can't watch it live, obviously, it's all on tape, on video now, so we can go back. So we've watched almost every single word of this trial. So here we are at the end. And so we actually had two very pressing appointments that needed to be made. And we kept delaying them and delaying them because we wanted to get to the end of this trial. So we made those appointments for today. Because we thought, surely, we're probably safe and not going to have an issue. So sure enough, this morning, coming into day four, I had to be at a foot appointment. And as I was in the seat having my foot doctor put a needle in my foot, I had my phone in my hand and I'm watching... the jury come back into the courtroom. And I said, you got to be freaking kidding me. Robes, off at her appointment as well, said, you got to be freaking kidding me. So as soon as we step away for just a moment, here they come and there's some action. It's not the actual verdict, of course, but that is why Robes is not here on this particular episode. And you know she's pissed that she's not. But she's going to be back in just a little bit, so we will be back at it. And we are keeping a close eye. Folks, you can keep an eye on our feed today. I don't know at this point much else we should be putting up besides clancy updates, but keep an eye on the feed, folks. But we always appreciate you sticking with us and trusting us along this journey that has been five-plus weeks. And will it end today with a verdict? Will it end today with a hung jury? And with that, folks, we'll always appreciate you. I'm TJ on behalf of my dear Robach. We'll talk to you all real soon.