Aug. 30, 2026
Killer Mom Trial: Clancy Jury Deliberation Times Compared to Other Famous Trials
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed The Lindsay Clancy jury will continue deliberations Monday, but they've already deliberated longer than the juries in the trials of OJ, Dahmer, Scott Peterson, Alex Murdaugh, and Susan Smith. But they've got a long way to go if they're going to deliberate as long as the Charles Manson jury. Amy and T.J. go through the deliberation times in some famous cases (MJ, Chauvin, Cosby, Yates, Zimmerman, etc) and see what it tells us the Clancy jury.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Sunday, August 30th, and as of this moment, the jurors in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial have deliberated about 10 hours. So where does that put them in the history of other high-profile criminal cases in the U.S.? It's very surprising. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. You try to look at some of these other cases, Rolf, and try to get some kind of a pattern or an idea. It's been all over the place.
00:00:30
Speaker 2: Right? I know. I was actually looking at the list you compiled of probably the most notable criminal trials that have taken place in our lifetimes. And... How long the jury deliberates has not indicated what the jury comes back with verdict-wise, which is a little surprising because people have their, I guess, rules where they think if they.
00:00:53
Speaker 3: Take this long, it probably means they're guilty.
00:00:56
Speaker 2: If they come back this quickly, it means they'reâ they have theirâ this proves that none of that actually holds water.
00:01:04
Speaker 1: Well, youâ this jury now has deliberated. about the same amount of time than the jury took to convict Jeffrey Dahmer. And so you try to piece it all together. What was it, 15 murders he was being put on trial for? How do you make sense of why it takes some people this long, it takes other folks this long, and it's complicated because of this, that, and the other? This is fascinating. So go through them. Karen Reid, Casey Anthony, O.J. Simpson. I remember OJ famously, but I didn't remember ahead of time how long Casey Anthony's jury took.
00:01:36
Speaker 3: Neither did I.
00:01:36
Speaker 1: Keep going. Scott Peterson, I didn't remember.
00:01:39
Speaker 2: Nope.
00:01:39
Speaker 1: Andrea Yates, George Zimmerman, Susan Smith, Michael Jackson. Now, Robes, I didn't remember. We're going to give you that number. It'll blow your mind. That jury took a while. Bill Cosby.
00:01:51
Speaker 3: That took a while as well.
00:01:53
Speaker 1: You go through a little history here. Charles Manson, the cops in the Rodney King case. Lizzie Borden, I decided to just throw in there for good measure. And then Derek Chauvin and Alex Murdaugh-Rose. These were very high profile cases that I went back and looked through and found. And I was fascinated and certainly did not remember how long and was surprised at almost all of them.
00:02:12
Speaker 2: Yes. And so this gives us all a little perspective. And we can all take a beat because it turns out when you have high profile, complex cases, it Usually takes.
00:02:22
Speaker 3: The jury quite a bit of time.
00:02:25
Speaker 2: But there are times where you're like, they come back head spinningly fast. You just can't predict it. That's why when attorneys are asked, when they're walking out of a courtroom, how long do you think the jury is going to take to deliberate? The correct answer is, I have no freaking idea.
00:02:40
Speaker 1: And it's usually the most honest thing you will hear from the attorneys during the entire trial. That is a true answer. They're not manipulating anything in that moment. They don't know. Nobody knows. And of course, some reporter will always ask, how long you think it's going to be? I've asked that question before. I have never heard an attorney say, you know what? I'm thinking next 45 minutes. It should be quick. Never.
00:03:02
Speaker 3: They also are superstitious. They don't want to.
00:03:05
Speaker 2: Say anything or do anything to upset the universe. So yeah, just let them do their thing. We'll know when we know.
00:03:11
Speaker 1: So let's start with the Andrew Yates question. jury. I guess this is an apt comparison. Rose back in 2006, remember she was tried once, that conviction was thrown out and she got another trial in which she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. But this is the comparisons that a lot of people are drawing, of course, with the Lindsay Clancy trial.
00:03:29
Speaker 2: Yes. And that jury took 12 hours over a span of three days. So look, if the comparisons continue, that would mean- that Monday we should get a verdict if those two cases continue to draw the comparisons they have. I mean, it was similar evidence, similar murders, and similar explanations.
00:03:53
Speaker 1: Similar experts. Same ones.
00:03:54
Speaker 3: And some of the same experts.
00:03:56
Speaker 2: So yeah, the jury is almost eerily going over the same type of evidence to come to What verdict? We don't know, but Andrea Yates did get what the defense is hoping for, not guilty by reason of insanity, and that insanity was specified as postpartum psychosis.
00:04:13
Speaker 1: You know what? I am throwing something in here that I do not remember in Andrea Yates' case, babe. If they have a system in Texas that they separate an insanity hearing before they have the actual criminal trial. They don't do that in Massachusetts. I know we've seen plenty of times, and there's a ruling that so-and-so has been found competent to stand trial. That's a mini trial they have to determine if somebody is criminally responsible. In Massachusetts, they do it all at the same time. So this jury has to decide about her mental capacity and the crime. The crime part, I guess, is settled. But they do it together, and some people think you shouldn't do that because it complicates matters in their jury room. So I can't remember if Andrea Yates had that or not, but that could add to... Some more time. Some more time. 2013, George Zimmerman. This one was... Rose, we were talking about this case for every day for years.
00:05:07
Speaker 3: A pressure cooker of a case.
00:05:08
Speaker 2: Just because so much was at stake and there was so much emotion behind it. Racial tensions as you were there covering the whole thing. And you were.
00:05:18
Speaker 3: I mean, you were.
00:05:19
Speaker 2: We were all certainly a part of this story because, yeah, Trayvon Martin... That is just a name that will be forever etched in our minds.
00:05:28
Speaker 1: With Skittles. Everybody remembers that detail of him having Skittles in his pocket. Well, yes, George Zimmerman was acquitted at that time. It took that jury, we were on edge for two days, and that was 16 hours of deliberation. Robes, 1995, the Susan Smith trial. This one, that didn't take them too long.
00:05:46
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it's funny.
00:05:48
Speaker 2: This is when I started my criminal... I was a crime reporter, basically, in Charleston, South Carolina, as Susan Smith, 1995, the year I became a journalist. And this was all we covered nonstop at.
00:06:00
Speaker 3: The John D. Long Lake.
00:06:02
Speaker 2: But yes, a woman who killed her two children, and she was found competent to stand trial. Remember, she blamed a mysterious black man.
00:06:12
Speaker 3: Or men of.
00:06:14
Speaker 2: Taking her car and then hijacking it, carjacking her, and then driving the car into the lake with the two boys inside.
00:06:22
Speaker 1: That case never sounded... I'm smiling, Rose, because that case, I'll always remember.
00:06:27
Speaker 3: It was ridiculous.
00:06:28
Speaker 1: It sounded so ridiculous to black folks to think that a black man is going to kidnap white babies. Yeah, why? Given all the problems we've already caused ourselves by stealing the car. This is what... It was... Jokes have been made about this over the years.
00:06:42
Speaker 2: Yes, and turns out she just wanted to be with a guy who didn't like kids, and so she was willing to sacrifice hers to be with him. She is now in prison because, yes, in two and a half hours, a jury found her guilty.
00:06:54
Speaker 1: That's funny. You said 1995. You started your career... I was just getting to college. Aw, thanks for pointing that out again. No, it's just cute when you say it. 95 was a big year for us. It was. I mentioned at the top, Jeffrey Dahmer, 92. About 10 hours is how long it took that jury, which is where we sit in this Lindsey Clancy case. Rose, 2005. Michael Jackson. Damn, I did not remember it took this long.
00:07:20
Speaker 3: I don't either because let's see. Yeah, both of us. You were a journalist by then, weren't you? 2005, just checking.
00:07:28
Speaker 1: Just fresh out of school.
00:07:29
Speaker 3: Just checking. Stop it.
00:07:30
Speaker 2: You graduated in 99. So anyway, yes, we were both around for this one. But it's funny how you forget that the jury deliberated for seven days, 32 plus hours.
00:07:43
Speaker 3: Those were short days, I guess.
00:07:46
Speaker 2: But yeah, they took that long to come to a not guilty verdict. And usually when you have these long drawn out, either it's a mistrial or you usually, people I think tend to think those amount to guilty verdicts, but that is not the case.
00:08:03
Speaker 1: In the 2017 case, Bill Cosby, now there's some guilt in this one, right? Yes, yes, yes. But it took them quite a while, 52 hours over six days. Some of these don't seem to lie. Some of these- count the lunch hour. So some of the day, it doesn't mean they had full eight hour, seven hour, even six hour days. And some of them have vacations or some of them are off. So that's why some of the numbers seem a little off. No way we would have remembered 1971, Charles Manton. He was on trial with what, two or three others, I think at the same time, maybe. And this took them quite a while.
00:08:36
Speaker 3: Wow.
00:08:37
Speaker 2: 42 plus hours and nine days to find him guilty. And those are cases that you think, I guess now looking back on, duh. Of course he was guilty, but it still took nine days.
00:08:48
Speaker 3: Can you imagine?
00:08:50
Speaker 1: The Rodney King case. Now, we were all on edge. I say we were all as a nation on edge, but this was back in 1991. It took them. The results ended up setting off riots, but it was four cops on trial. I think two were acquitted and two were found guilty of something, and that clearly wasn't Yeah, that split verdict.
00:09:11
Speaker 3: Was not what folks wanted to hear.
00:09:14
Speaker 2: That took seven days and 40 plus hours to come to that verdict.
00:09:19
Speaker 3: And look, that makes sense.
00:09:20
Speaker 2: If you've got multiple cops, you've got so much on the line. I think obviously jurors are aware of the... social, uh, racial pressures that are now on them, that this is going, their verdict is going to actually have a direct impact on the community, on any said reaction, like that pressure of feeling, look, a life is in your hands or lives were in their hands at this point. But, yeah, the stability of the community is also in play.
00:09:49
Speaker 1: You're supposed to just do your duty in there with no thought of what the consequences could be. But can you imagine being a juror and you think your vote set off violence and death?
00:09:59
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:10:00
Speaker 1: Yes. Derek Chauvin, 2021, didn't realize. Yes, the convicted in the killing of George Floyd, 10 hours, two days. So it didn't take them that, we didn't have to wait that long for that one. Alex Murda, I did not remember this one. And Robes, they Apparently didn't buy much of his story and didn't take them all.
00:10:19
Speaker 3: No, that is quick. Three hours for a guilty verdict.
00:10:23
Speaker 2: Now, of course, he's getting a new trial. So there was, look, now we have been talking about and will continue to talk about a clerk of the court who supposedly spoke to the jury the way she shouldn't have, which could have possibly influenced their decision.
00:10:40
Speaker 3: But it was a quick one, so I don't know. It looks like if he... Does go back to court.
00:10:46
Speaker 2: It doesn't seem like it looks like they were convinced. Yeah.
00:10:51
Speaker 3: I don't know what his shot is with another set of 12, but we shall see.
00:10:54
Speaker 1: And most famously, of course, Robes trial of the century. And I guess at this point, this has been talked about so much that I bet most Americans walk in the streets. You ask them how long this jury deliberated, they could probably come up with the answer.
00:11:05
Speaker 3: Yeah, I knew it was quick.
00:11:07
Speaker 2: I don't know that I knew exactly how many hours, but just four hours, the first day of deliberations, they came back with a not guilty verdict. And I just remember sitting in, again, my first newsroom. You were in high school. But watching the Oprah Winfrey show and half the audience, because they got the news while it was being taped, was cheering in celebration.
00:11:28
Speaker 3: They were black.
00:11:30
Speaker 2: And then the other half were... just sitting there in disbelief and shock, and they were white.
00:11:36
Speaker 3: I remember that moment.
00:11:37
Speaker 1: I think I was in my lunchroom.
00:11:39
Speaker 3: Will you stop?
00:11:40
Speaker 1: I was out of grade school, though.
00:11:42
Speaker 3: I was in my newsroom. You were in your lunchroom.
00:11:44
Speaker 1: I'm just teasing. It's fine. Scott Peterson, 2004. It took them eight hours in that case. Casey Anthony, babe, 2011. I had to do a little more research and understand why was she found not guilty again?
00:11:57
Speaker 3: I still don't know, babe.
00:11:58
Speaker 2: I still don't know, and people credited her attorney, but At the time, it made no sense. This is a woman who was literally searching chloroform. She was trying to go out and party with her friends. She wanted to go out. Her child was a nuisance. But her grandparents, because I was at NBC at the Today Show then, they were literally on the Today Show every day. Her parents, sorry, the grandparents of the daughter. And look, they were her advocates throughout it all.
00:12:27
Speaker 1: I was doing research. I couldn't understand.
00:12:30
Speaker 3: I still don't understand.
00:12:32
Speaker 1: She was convicted of some lesser lying to police or something like that.
00:12:36
Speaker 3: She got away with it. That's just the truth.
00:12:39
Speaker 1: Karen Reed, 2025. This was just last year. I didn't follow this case that closely, but I certainly followed the aftermath. And I remember her walking out as a hero on the steps and being cheered.
00:12:49
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, because she was being charged with killing her police officer boyfriend, correct? But she claimed to be a victim of domestic violence, and that's why she had a lot of support. And I really, this is the case, babe, because we hadn't really covered trials that much. We were still building our feed, and we saw the passion and the reaction and the emotion behind this trial. We started to pay attention to trials and say, this is something that we should be paying closer attention to. And yeah, 22 hours later, Five days, not guilty. She got convicted for DUI, I think, but she escaped murder and manslaughter charges, and that shocked a lot of people.
00:13:31
Speaker 1: It's shocking. Do you think most people remember what happened with Lizzie Borden?
00:13:34
Speaker 2: Well, they just know the 40 whacks that she axed her father and her stepmother. Allegedly.
00:13:42
Speaker 3: Allegedly is right.
00:13:43
Speaker 1: Lizzie borden i didn't know she was found not.
00:13:45
Speaker 2: Guilty not guilty well i only know because i actually went to her home in falls river massachusetts.
00:13:51
Speaker 1: So she's not guilty so she didn't do any of that.
00:13:53
Speaker 2: And let's just say the community for the rest of her life all believed she did it they were all a little weary of why.
00:13:59
Speaker 1: Do we all know lizzie borden as the axe murderer.
00:14:03
Speaker 3: Because she almost certainly was.
00:14:04
Speaker 1: Well, she was found not guilty.
00:14:05
Speaker 3: But she was found not guilty. You want to know why, though?
00:14:08
Speaker 2: Back in the time, if you look, they have a whole museum and actually an Airbnb set up in that home where you can sleep where she allegedly whacked her father and her stepmother.
00:14:18
Speaker 1: You can get a reservation easily. It's never booked. People sleep in.
00:14:22
Speaker 3: They actually have the body outlines and people will... The folks told me that people will sleep on the body.
00:14:28
Speaker 1: That's awesome.
00:14:28
Speaker 3: This is how weird people are. They want to be close to the.
00:14:30
Speaker 1: Weird is the weird stuff.
00:14:31
Speaker 3: We're a little bit weird, but that's a little too weird for me.
00:14:34
Speaker 2: But in this museum, they do say that at the time, people were just unwilling to believe a woman was capable of that. Although I know we hanged women for being witches, and it's around that area in that state where women were considered evil, and yet No one could get behind the idea that this young lady could kill her dad and her stepmother for money.
00:14:58
Speaker 3: It just didn't seem like, it didn't seem very ladylike.
00:15:01
Speaker 1: Now it's every other episode of Snapped. Exactly.
00:15:05
Speaker 2: And so, yeah, I think they believe that public sentiment, just this unwillingness to accept that reality led to her not guilty.
00:15:13
Speaker 3: But I couldn't believe how quickly they.
00:15:14
Speaker 1: Came to it. So it was all men on this jury. To your point, we can't see a woman. So you're telling me if she had 12 women on that jury?
00:15:22
Speaker 3: She'd be guilty.
00:15:23
Speaker 2: What?
00:15:23
Speaker 3: Guilty, guilty, guilty.
00:15:25
Speaker 1: Oh, my God.
00:15:26
Speaker 3: Because we know what's inside of us.
00:15:28
Speaker 1: Oh, my God.
00:15:30
Speaker 3: We can kill.
00:15:31
Speaker 1: Now, the way the story goes, if you look, it'll say that the deliberations only took an hour to an hour and a half. Officially, that's what it took. But if you do a little more digging, Robes, they say these 12 men walked in there, voted, and it was a wrap in 10 minutes. And I've said this before, Robes. I mean, if you make a quick decision, do you just hang out in there a little while to make it look good? Apparently, that's what they did.
00:15:55
Speaker 3: They didn't want people to think that they didn't deliberate.
00:15:58
Speaker 1: So it took only 10 minutes. But all these we're talking about, there is actually a Guinness World Record for the longest jury deliberation ever. I'll explain what that one is. And also, there was another recent, Rose, fairly recent case, a criminal one, where the jury took four months to make a decision. All right, we continue here on Amy and TJ. Ten and a half hours, roughly, the jury has been deliberating in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. Going over some of these other famous cases and how long the jury deliberations have taken. There was this Oakland Writers trial. That's what they call it. It was a police corruption trial. It was happening in Oakland. Oh, this just wrapped up in 2023. And that jury took three and a half plus months of deliberation. They went back to the judge, I think, on at least three occasions and say we're deadlocked. Send them back. It was just a long, ongoing, complicated case that they did not want to have to... It tore the community apart to a certain degree. They didn't want to have to do this again. Four months. Wow. Almost four months.
00:17:13
Speaker 3: I don't remember any reports on that at all.
00:17:16
Speaker 1: It was covered widely out there, but a major police corruption trial. And ultimately, it didn't lead to... There were mistrial on some, hung jury on some, acquitted on some charges. It was a mess. But once you see the charges and how many were involved, Rose, it would take forever to figure that out. But they were, that trial ended up taking almost a year. How can you do a year of jury duty?
00:17:38
Speaker 2: I don't, I don't know because like, look, for those of us, I, I swear I get called for jury duty the second my time lapses and Every time I go, when they say this is probably going to be a three-week trial, everyone kind of moans. What if they said this is going to be a three-month trial or a full-year trial? Who can opt out of their life for that long? How can they have an expectation that a person who has a paying job and likely is putting bread on the table can be gone for that long?
00:18:09
Speaker 1: I get kicked off the jury's vest because I come back and do a podcast about our jury deliberations. Right? I'm kicked off the jury. Don't have to go in tomorrow.
00:18:18
Speaker 3: Oh, Mike, I just don't know who has that kind of time.
00:18:20
Speaker 1: I don't know how they do this.
00:18:21
Speaker 3: Because what do you make, $ 25 a day? That's, like, mind-blowing.
00:18:25
Speaker 1: I thought you were about to say booze.
00:18:26
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, it is.
00:18:27
Speaker 3: That's that, too.
00:18:28
Speaker 1: But Guinness does have a world record that they lift robes for a trial. This was a civil trial. Case, though, and it did take place in California, Long Beach in particular. It had to do with a violation of the U.S. Fair Housing Act that took place out there. Again, it was a complicated trial, had to do with money, but ultimately robes. Guinness, world record, four and a half months. Jury deliberated for four and a half months.
00:18:52
Speaker 3: That is exhausting.
00:18:54
Speaker 2: You're telling me they went into a deliberation chamber every single day.
00:18:59
Speaker 1: Yes, they did.
00:19:00
Speaker 3: That sounds like a hell.
00:19:02
Speaker 2: Like, you know when you have to keep doing the same thing over and over again and with no change in results?
00:19:08
Speaker 3: That's like torture. I'd be like, what do you want me to say?
00:19:11
Speaker 1: I'm in.
00:19:11
Speaker 2: Like, whatever the majority, I'm changing my thing. Just to protect my own sanity. I cannot imagine having to do that.
00:19:18
Speaker 1: They ultimately awarded $ 20 million to the plaintiffs, Rose, but it was a matter of... I guess it had to be more to it than just deciding on a number. Negotiating a number, so they... Four and a half months. Maybe some of them didn't want to go back to their lives.
00:19:35
Speaker 2: I guess all there needs to be is one strong person. But how could they not have been begging for a mistrial or begging for just something.
00:19:42
Speaker 3: To make it stop? I mean, if you can't get people to agree. I actually looked back because I was curious.
00:19:46
Speaker 2: I tried to remember how long Diddy's verdict went. or the deliberations went. And this is kind of interesting because if we get a verdict on Monday with Lindsey Clancy, it would be similar to Diddy and Andrea Yates because the Diddy jurors deliberated for around 12 hours over the course of three days before reaching a split verdict.
00:20:08
Speaker 1: It was a weekend in there, wasn't it?
00:20:10
Speaker 3: Did they go through the weekend?
00:20:11
Speaker 1: I don't remember that. Why do I think there was a weekend involved in that?
00:20:13
Speaker 2: I think they said it was Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. So maybe they were starting out on Friday and they just decided to go home and they started on Monday. They say the first day of deliberations were at 1130 on a Monday. And then they went Monday, Tuesday, and then Wednesday. They only had about an hour. But remember that second day they said we can't reach a verdict.
00:20:33
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:20:34
Speaker 2: They came back to the judge and said, so on day two, They said, we are so split.
00:20:39
Speaker 3: We are not even close. We can't do it. And he sent them back and said, keep trying.
00:20:44
Speaker 1: It didn't take long. They were like, to hell with it.
00:20:46
Speaker 3: And then, yes.
00:20:47
Speaker 2: So interestingly enough, after they said they couldn't do it, begged the judge to let them have a hung jury, the judge said, nope, go back.
00:20:53
Speaker 3: The next day, one hour later, they had a verdict. So it's interesting. But that 12-hour mark, that's Andrea Yates. That's Diddy. We shall see if that's what we have in the Lindsay Clancy trial.
00:21:04
Speaker 2: But we will be watching, everyone. Thank you for listening. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ Holmes. We'll talk to you soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Sunday, August 30th, and as of this moment, the jurors in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial have deliberated about 10 hours. So where does that put them in the history of other high-profile criminal cases in the U.S.? It's very surprising. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. You try to look at some of these other cases, Rolf, and try to get some kind of a pattern or an idea. It's been all over the place.
00:00:30
Speaker 2: Right? I know. I was actually looking at the list you compiled of probably the most notable criminal trials that have taken place in our lifetimes. And... How long the jury deliberates has not indicated what the jury comes back with verdict-wise, which is a little surprising because people have their, I guess, rules where they think if they.
00:00:53
Speaker 3: Take this long, it probably means they're guilty.
00:00:56
Speaker 2: If they come back this quickly, it means they'reâ they have theirâ this proves that none of that actually holds water.
00:01:04
Speaker 1: Well, youâ this jury now has deliberated. about the same amount of time than the jury took to convict Jeffrey Dahmer. And so you try to piece it all together. What was it, 15 murders he was being put on trial for? How do you make sense of why it takes some people this long, it takes other folks this long, and it's complicated because of this, that, and the other? This is fascinating. So go through them. Karen Reid, Casey Anthony, O.J. Simpson. I remember OJ famously, but I didn't remember ahead of time how long Casey Anthony's jury took.
00:01:36
Speaker 3: Neither did I.
00:01:36
Speaker 1: Keep going. Scott Peterson, I didn't remember.
00:01:39
Speaker 2: Nope.
00:01:39
Speaker 1: Andrea Yates, George Zimmerman, Susan Smith, Michael Jackson. Now, Robes, I didn't remember. We're going to give you that number. It'll blow your mind. That jury took a while. Bill Cosby.
00:01:51
Speaker 3: That took a while as well.
00:01:53
Speaker 1: You go through a little history here. Charles Manson, the cops in the Rodney King case. Lizzie Borden, I decided to just throw in there for good measure. And then Derek Chauvin and Alex Murdaugh-Rose. These were very high profile cases that I went back and looked through and found. And I was fascinated and certainly did not remember how long and was surprised at almost all of them.
00:02:12
Speaker 2: Yes. And so this gives us all a little perspective. And we can all take a beat because it turns out when you have high profile, complex cases, it Usually takes.
00:02:22
Speaker 3: The jury quite a bit of time.
00:02:25
Speaker 2: But there are times where you're like, they come back head spinningly fast. You just can't predict it. That's why when attorneys are asked, when they're walking out of a courtroom, how long do you think the jury is going to take to deliberate? The correct answer is, I have no freaking idea.
00:02:40
Speaker 1: And it's usually the most honest thing you will hear from the attorneys during the entire trial. That is a true answer. They're not manipulating anything in that moment. They don't know. Nobody knows. And of course, some reporter will always ask, how long you think it's going to be? I've asked that question before. I have never heard an attorney say, you know what? I'm thinking next 45 minutes. It should be quick. Never.
00:03:02
Speaker 3: They also are superstitious. They don't want to.
00:03:05
Speaker 2: Say anything or do anything to upset the universe. So yeah, just let them do their thing. We'll know when we know.
00:03:11
Speaker 1: So let's start with the Andrew Yates question. jury. I guess this is an apt comparison. Rose back in 2006, remember she was tried once, that conviction was thrown out and she got another trial in which she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. But this is the comparisons that a lot of people are drawing, of course, with the Lindsay Clancy trial.
00:03:29
Speaker 2: Yes. And that jury took 12 hours over a span of three days. So look, if the comparisons continue, that would mean- that Monday we should get a verdict if those two cases continue to draw the comparisons they have. I mean, it was similar evidence, similar murders, and similar explanations.
00:03:53
Speaker 1: Similar experts. Same ones.
00:03:54
Speaker 3: And some of the same experts.
00:03:56
Speaker 2: So yeah, the jury is almost eerily going over the same type of evidence to come to What verdict? We don't know, but Andrea Yates did get what the defense is hoping for, not guilty by reason of insanity, and that insanity was specified as postpartum psychosis.
00:04:13
Speaker 1: You know what? I am throwing something in here that I do not remember in Andrea Yates' case, babe. If they have a system in Texas that they separate an insanity hearing before they have the actual criminal trial. They don't do that in Massachusetts. I know we've seen plenty of times, and there's a ruling that so-and-so has been found competent to stand trial. That's a mini trial they have to determine if somebody is criminally responsible. In Massachusetts, they do it all at the same time. So this jury has to decide about her mental capacity and the crime. The crime part, I guess, is settled. But they do it together, and some people think you shouldn't do that because it complicates matters in their jury room. So I can't remember if Andrea Yates had that or not, but that could add to... Some more time. Some more time. 2013, George Zimmerman. This one was... Rose, we were talking about this case for every day for years.
00:05:07
Speaker 3: A pressure cooker of a case.
00:05:08
Speaker 2: Just because so much was at stake and there was so much emotion behind it. Racial tensions as you were there covering the whole thing. And you were.
00:05:18
Speaker 3: I mean, you were.
00:05:19
Speaker 2: We were all certainly a part of this story because, yeah, Trayvon Martin... That is just a name that will be forever etched in our minds.
00:05:28
Speaker 1: With Skittles. Everybody remembers that detail of him having Skittles in his pocket. Well, yes, George Zimmerman was acquitted at that time. It took that jury, we were on edge for two days, and that was 16 hours of deliberation. Robes, 1995, the Susan Smith trial. This one, that didn't take them too long.
00:05:46
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it's funny.
00:05:48
Speaker 2: This is when I started my criminal... I was a crime reporter, basically, in Charleston, South Carolina, as Susan Smith, 1995, the year I became a journalist. And this was all we covered nonstop at.
00:06:00
Speaker 3: The John D. Long Lake.
00:06:02
Speaker 2: But yes, a woman who killed her two children, and she was found competent to stand trial. Remember, she blamed a mysterious black man.
00:06:12
Speaker 3: Or men of.
00:06:14
Speaker 2: Taking her car and then hijacking it, carjacking her, and then driving the car into the lake with the two boys inside.
00:06:22
Speaker 1: That case never sounded... I'm smiling, Rose, because that case, I'll always remember.
00:06:27
Speaker 3: It was ridiculous.
00:06:28
Speaker 1: It sounded so ridiculous to black folks to think that a black man is going to kidnap white babies. Yeah, why? Given all the problems we've already caused ourselves by stealing the car. This is what... It was... Jokes have been made about this over the years.
00:06:42
Speaker 2: Yes, and turns out she just wanted to be with a guy who didn't like kids, and so she was willing to sacrifice hers to be with him. She is now in prison because, yes, in two and a half hours, a jury found her guilty.
00:06:54
Speaker 1: That's funny. You said 1995. You started your career... I was just getting to college. Aw, thanks for pointing that out again. No, it's just cute when you say it. 95 was a big year for us. It was. I mentioned at the top, Jeffrey Dahmer, 92. About 10 hours is how long it took that jury, which is where we sit in this Lindsey Clancy case. Rose, 2005. Michael Jackson. Damn, I did not remember it took this long.
00:07:20
Speaker 3: I don't either because let's see. Yeah, both of us. You were a journalist by then, weren't you? 2005, just checking.
00:07:28
Speaker 1: Just fresh out of school.
00:07:29
Speaker 3: Just checking. Stop it.
00:07:30
Speaker 2: You graduated in 99. So anyway, yes, we were both around for this one. But it's funny how you forget that the jury deliberated for seven days, 32 plus hours.
00:07:43
Speaker 3: Those were short days, I guess.
00:07:46
Speaker 2: But yeah, they took that long to come to a not guilty verdict. And usually when you have these long drawn out, either it's a mistrial or you usually, people I think tend to think those amount to guilty verdicts, but that is not the case.
00:08:03
Speaker 1: In the 2017 case, Bill Cosby, now there's some guilt in this one, right? Yes, yes, yes. But it took them quite a while, 52 hours over six days. Some of these don't seem to lie. Some of these- count the lunch hour. So some of the day, it doesn't mean they had full eight hour, seven hour, even six hour days. And some of them have vacations or some of them are off. So that's why some of the numbers seem a little off. No way we would have remembered 1971, Charles Manton. He was on trial with what, two or three others, I think at the same time, maybe. And this took them quite a while.
00:08:36
Speaker 3: Wow.
00:08:37
Speaker 2: 42 plus hours and nine days to find him guilty. And those are cases that you think, I guess now looking back on, duh. Of course he was guilty, but it still took nine days.
00:08:48
Speaker 3: Can you imagine?
00:08:50
Speaker 1: The Rodney King case. Now, we were all on edge. I say we were all as a nation on edge, but this was back in 1991. It took them. The results ended up setting off riots, but it was four cops on trial. I think two were acquitted and two were found guilty of something, and that clearly wasn't Yeah, that split verdict.
00:09:11
Speaker 3: Was not what folks wanted to hear.
00:09:14
Speaker 2: That took seven days and 40 plus hours to come to that verdict.
00:09:19
Speaker 3: And look, that makes sense.
00:09:20
Speaker 2: If you've got multiple cops, you've got so much on the line. I think obviously jurors are aware of the... social, uh, racial pressures that are now on them, that this is going, their verdict is going to actually have a direct impact on the community, on any said reaction, like that pressure of feeling, look, a life is in your hands or lives were in their hands at this point. But, yeah, the stability of the community is also in play.
00:09:49
Speaker 1: You're supposed to just do your duty in there with no thought of what the consequences could be. But can you imagine being a juror and you think your vote set off violence and death?
00:09:59
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:10:00
Speaker 1: Yes. Derek Chauvin, 2021, didn't realize. Yes, the convicted in the killing of George Floyd, 10 hours, two days. So it didn't take them that, we didn't have to wait that long for that one. Alex Murda, I did not remember this one. And Robes, they Apparently didn't buy much of his story and didn't take them all.
00:10:19
Speaker 3: No, that is quick. Three hours for a guilty verdict.
00:10:23
Speaker 2: Now, of course, he's getting a new trial. So there was, look, now we have been talking about and will continue to talk about a clerk of the court who supposedly spoke to the jury the way she shouldn't have, which could have possibly influenced their decision.
00:10:40
Speaker 3: But it was a quick one, so I don't know. It looks like if he... Does go back to court.
00:10:46
Speaker 2: It doesn't seem like it looks like they were convinced. Yeah.
00:10:51
Speaker 3: I don't know what his shot is with another set of 12, but we shall see.
00:10:54
Speaker 1: And most famously, of course, Robes trial of the century. And I guess at this point, this has been talked about so much that I bet most Americans walk in the streets. You ask them how long this jury deliberated, they could probably come up with the answer.
00:11:05
Speaker 3: Yeah, I knew it was quick.
00:11:07
Speaker 2: I don't know that I knew exactly how many hours, but just four hours, the first day of deliberations, they came back with a not guilty verdict. And I just remember sitting in, again, my first newsroom. You were in high school. But watching the Oprah Winfrey show and half the audience, because they got the news while it was being taped, was cheering in celebration.
00:11:28
Speaker 3: They were black.
00:11:30
Speaker 2: And then the other half were... just sitting there in disbelief and shock, and they were white.
00:11:36
Speaker 3: I remember that moment.
00:11:37
Speaker 1: I think I was in my lunchroom.
00:11:39
Speaker 3: Will you stop?
00:11:40
Speaker 1: I was out of grade school, though.
00:11:42
Speaker 3: I was in my newsroom. You were in your lunchroom.
00:11:44
Speaker 1: I'm just teasing. It's fine. Scott Peterson, 2004. It took them eight hours in that case. Casey Anthony, babe, 2011. I had to do a little more research and understand why was she found not guilty again?
00:11:57
Speaker 3: I still don't know, babe.
00:11:58
Speaker 2: I still don't know, and people credited her attorney, but At the time, it made no sense. This is a woman who was literally searching chloroform. She was trying to go out and party with her friends. She wanted to go out. Her child was a nuisance. But her grandparents, because I was at NBC at the Today Show then, they were literally on the Today Show every day. Her parents, sorry, the grandparents of the daughter. And look, they were her advocates throughout it all.
00:12:27
Speaker 1: I was doing research. I couldn't understand.
00:12:30
Speaker 3: I still don't understand.
00:12:32
Speaker 1: She was convicted of some lesser lying to police or something like that.
00:12:36
Speaker 3: She got away with it. That's just the truth.
00:12:39
Speaker 1: Karen Reed, 2025. This was just last year. I didn't follow this case that closely, but I certainly followed the aftermath. And I remember her walking out as a hero on the steps and being cheered.
00:12:49
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, because she was being charged with killing her police officer boyfriend, correct? But she claimed to be a victim of domestic violence, and that's why she had a lot of support. And I really, this is the case, babe, because we hadn't really covered trials that much. We were still building our feed, and we saw the passion and the reaction and the emotion behind this trial. We started to pay attention to trials and say, this is something that we should be paying closer attention to. And yeah, 22 hours later, Five days, not guilty. She got convicted for DUI, I think, but she escaped murder and manslaughter charges, and that shocked a lot of people.
00:13:31
Speaker 1: It's shocking. Do you think most people remember what happened with Lizzie Borden?
00:13:34
Speaker 2: Well, they just know the 40 whacks that she axed her father and her stepmother. Allegedly.
00:13:42
Speaker 3: Allegedly is right.
00:13:43
Speaker 1: Lizzie borden i didn't know she was found not.
00:13:45
Speaker 2: Guilty not guilty well i only know because i actually went to her home in falls river massachusetts.
00:13:51
Speaker 1: So she's not guilty so she didn't do any of that.
00:13:53
Speaker 2: And let's just say the community for the rest of her life all believed she did it they were all a little weary of why.
00:13:59
Speaker 1: Do we all know lizzie borden as the axe murderer.
00:14:03
Speaker 3: Because she almost certainly was.
00:14:04
Speaker 1: Well, she was found not guilty.
00:14:05
Speaker 3: But she was found not guilty. You want to know why, though?
00:14:08
Speaker 2: Back in the time, if you look, they have a whole museum and actually an Airbnb set up in that home where you can sleep where she allegedly whacked her father and her stepmother.
00:14:18
Speaker 1: You can get a reservation easily. It's never booked. People sleep in.
00:14:22
Speaker 3: They actually have the body outlines and people will... The folks told me that people will sleep on the body.
00:14:28
Speaker 1: That's awesome.
00:14:28
Speaker 3: This is how weird people are. They want to be close to the.
00:14:30
Speaker 1: Weird is the weird stuff.
00:14:31
Speaker 3: We're a little bit weird, but that's a little too weird for me.
00:14:34
Speaker 2: But in this museum, they do say that at the time, people were just unwilling to believe a woman was capable of that. Although I know we hanged women for being witches, and it's around that area in that state where women were considered evil, and yet No one could get behind the idea that this young lady could kill her dad and her stepmother for money.
00:14:58
Speaker 3: It just didn't seem like, it didn't seem very ladylike.
00:15:01
Speaker 1: Now it's every other episode of Snapped. Exactly.
00:15:05
Speaker 2: And so, yeah, I think they believe that public sentiment, just this unwillingness to accept that reality led to her not guilty.
00:15:13
Speaker 3: But I couldn't believe how quickly they.
00:15:14
Speaker 1: Came to it. So it was all men on this jury. To your point, we can't see a woman. So you're telling me if she had 12 women on that jury?
00:15:22
Speaker 3: She'd be guilty.
00:15:23
Speaker 2: What?
00:15:23
Speaker 3: Guilty, guilty, guilty.
00:15:25
Speaker 1: Oh, my God.
00:15:26
Speaker 3: Because we know what's inside of us.
00:15:28
Speaker 1: Oh, my God.
00:15:30
Speaker 3: We can kill.
00:15:31
Speaker 1: Now, the way the story goes, if you look, it'll say that the deliberations only took an hour to an hour and a half. Officially, that's what it took. But if you do a little more digging, Robes, they say these 12 men walked in there, voted, and it was a wrap in 10 minutes. And I've said this before, Robes. I mean, if you make a quick decision, do you just hang out in there a little while to make it look good? Apparently, that's what they did.
00:15:55
Speaker 3: They didn't want people to think that they didn't deliberate.
00:15:58
Speaker 1: So it took only 10 minutes. But all these we're talking about, there is actually a Guinness World Record for the longest jury deliberation ever. I'll explain what that one is. And also, there was another recent, Rose, fairly recent case, a criminal one, where the jury took four months to make a decision. All right, we continue here on Amy and TJ. Ten and a half hours, roughly, the jury has been deliberating in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. Going over some of these other famous cases and how long the jury deliberations have taken. There was this Oakland Writers trial. That's what they call it. It was a police corruption trial. It was happening in Oakland. Oh, this just wrapped up in 2023. And that jury took three and a half plus months of deliberation. They went back to the judge, I think, on at least three occasions and say we're deadlocked. Send them back. It was just a long, ongoing, complicated case that they did not want to have to... It tore the community apart to a certain degree. They didn't want to have to do this again. Four months. Wow. Almost four months.
00:17:13
Speaker 3: I don't remember any reports on that at all.
00:17:16
Speaker 1: It was covered widely out there, but a major police corruption trial. And ultimately, it didn't lead to... There were mistrial on some, hung jury on some, acquitted on some charges. It was a mess. But once you see the charges and how many were involved, Rose, it would take forever to figure that out. But they were, that trial ended up taking almost a year. How can you do a year of jury duty?
00:17:38
Speaker 2: I don't, I don't know because like, look, for those of us, I, I swear I get called for jury duty the second my time lapses and Every time I go, when they say this is probably going to be a three-week trial, everyone kind of moans. What if they said this is going to be a three-month trial or a full-year trial? Who can opt out of their life for that long? How can they have an expectation that a person who has a paying job and likely is putting bread on the table can be gone for that long?
00:18:09
Speaker 1: I get kicked off the jury's vest because I come back and do a podcast about our jury deliberations. Right? I'm kicked off the jury. Don't have to go in tomorrow.
00:18:18
Speaker 3: Oh, Mike, I just don't know who has that kind of time.
00:18:20
Speaker 1: I don't know how they do this.
00:18:21
Speaker 3: Because what do you make, $ 25 a day? That's, like, mind-blowing.
00:18:25
Speaker 1: I thought you were about to say booze.
00:18:26
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, it is.
00:18:27
Speaker 3: That's that, too.
00:18:28
Speaker 1: But Guinness does have a world record that they lift robes for a trial. This was a civil trial. Case, though, and it did take place in California, Long Beach in particular. It had to do with a violation of the U.S. Fair Housing Act that took place out there. Again, it was a complicated trial, had to do with money, but ultimately robes. Guinness, world record, four and a half months. Jury deliberated for four and a half months.
00:18:52
Speaker 3: That is exhausting.
00:18:54
Speaker 2: You're telling me they went into a deliberation chamber every single day.
00:18:59
Speaker 1: Yes, they did.
00:19:00
Speaker 3: That sounds like a hell.
00:19:02
Speaker 2: Like, you know when you have to keep doing the same thing over and over again and with no change in results?
00:19:08
Speaker 3: That's like torture. I'd be like, what do you want me to say?
00:19:11
Speaker 1: I'm in.
00:19:11
Speaker 2: Like, whatever the majority, I'm changing my thing. Just to protect my own sanity. I cannot imagine having to do that.
00:19:18
Speaker 1: They ultimately awarded $ 20 million to the plaintiffs, Rose, but it was a matter of... I guess it had to be more to it than just deciding on a number. Negotiating a number, so they... Four and a half months. Maybe some of them didn't want to go back to their lives.
00:19:35
Speaker 2: I guess all there needs to be is one strong person. But how could they not have been begging for a mistrial or begging for just something.
00:19:42
Speaker 3: To make it stop? I mean, if you can't get people to agree. I actually looked back because I was curious.
00:19:46
Speaker 2: I tried to remember how long Diddy's verdict went. or the deliberations went. And this is kind of interesting because if we get a verdict on Monday with Lindsey Clancy, it would be similar to Diddy and Andrea Yates because the Diddy jurors deliberated for around 12 hours over the course of three days before reaching a split verdict.
00:20:08
Speaker 1: It was a weekend in there, wasn't it?
00:20:10
Speaker 3: Did they go through the weekend?
00:20:11
Speaker 1: I don't remember that. Why do I think there was a weekend involved in that?
00:20:13
Speaker 2: I think they said it was Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. So maybe they were starting out on Friday and they just decided to go home and they started on Monday. They say the first day of deliberations were at 1130 on a Monday. And then they went Monday, Tuesday, and then Wednesday. They only had about an hour. But remember that second day they said we can't reach a verdict.
00:20:33
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:20:34
Speaker 2: They came back to the judge and said, so on day two, They said, we are so split.
00:20:39
Speaker 3: We are not even close. We can't do it. And he sent them back and said, keep trying.
00:20:44
Speaker 1: It didn't take long. They were like, to hell with it.
00:20:46
Speaker 3: And then, yes.
00:20:47
Speaker 2: So interestingly enough, after they said they couldn't do it, begged the judge to let them have a hung jury, the judge said, nope, go back.
00:20:53
Speaker 3: The next day, one hour later, they had a verdict. So it's interesting. But that 12-hour mark, that's Andrea Yates. That's Diddy. We shall see if that's what we have in the Lindsay Clancy trial.
00:21:04
Speaker 2: But we will be watching, everyone. Thank you for listening. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ Holmes. We'll talk to you soon.