Sept. 1, 2026
Killer Mom Trial VERDICT WATCH: Jury Back For Day 4 Of Deliberations!
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed The jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial is back at it, beginning their 4th day of deliberations. As of this morning, the jury has already deliberated for 17 hours, which makes this verdict watch one of the longest in recent high profile murder trials. We go over what the judge’s options are if the jury says they’re deadlocked. While the state of Massachusetts does not allow an Allen charge, they do have another type of charge, called the Tuey-Rodriguez instruction. It’s certainly controversial and considered a last ditch effort to encourage jurors into a compromise.
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 as of this recording, the jury just got started with day four of deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. With that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Quite literally, they went in five minutes ago of this recording. Robes, we're waiting to See, we heard something of any kind in court this morning. It was nothing but, hi, go back and do your work.
00:00:29
Speaker 1: Yes. Have you read anything? Have you seen anything? Anything you want to tell me?
00:00:33
Speaker 2: Every morning.
00:00:34
Speaker 1: No answer. All good. Back to deliberations. This has been the quietest jury it feels like that I can recall. Usually you got something. You got a question. You got some sort of issue. A juror's late. A juror's sick. We've seen different moments pop up here and there.
00:00:52
Speaker 2: He lost a couple jurors.
00:00:53
Speaker 1: Yeah, he lost a couple jurors. And look, to have day four and not to have any idea whatsoever about how close they are, where they've gotten to, if anywhere, no questions, we don't have a clue. Not one.
00:01:10
Speaker 2: They have not asked one question related to this case. They asked him a question last week. Can we go home early?
00:01:18
Speaker 1: Yeah.
00:01:20
Speaker 2: That was it. That is literally the only question they have asked this judge having to... That is, of all that's going on, I figured as complicated as this is, I thought we were going to be getting notes left and right.
00:01:32
Speaker 1: Yes, so did I. And to know that we're now in the 17th hour of deliberations, and we don't have a clue if they're anywhere near reaching a consensus... And usually the questions will kind of let you see what they're focused on or what their sticking point might be or what they need more clarification on. And that can give you an indication of where they're leaning. When you hear nothing, it's unnerving. And we're sitting here on the edge of our seats, literally planning our day around not missing or being near a television and a microphone if this suddenly breaks. But can you imagine... Just the folks whose lives are about to be upended. Lindsay Clancy, her family, her friends, all of her supporters. I'm curious, is there anyone in that courtroom? Obviously, we know America is split, certainly by what we see online and what we've seen outside the courtroom. But in terms of close family and friends. Do you get the sense that there's anyone who has testified or who has been in that courtroom who is rooting for her to go to prison?
00:02:44
Speaker 2: Nobody in that courtroom, no. Because the victims, family members are sitting in there because they're the same family members of the defendant. I know a few seats have gone to very few members of the public, so I guess somebody like that could get in there. But as far as family goes, no, we've seen nothing. So she has a A courtroom of supporters and reporters, essentially.
00:03:08
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that's so unique. You don't typically see that. And with, like I said, as divided as America seems to be, it's interesting that in that courtroom, the folks who know all the parties involved seem to all be clearly on the side of Lindsay Clancy getting medical treatment, being committed to a hospital, the hospital she's been in for the past three years. And it doesn't feel like anyone... Maybe other than the prosecutors, obviously that side, that table, that one table wants to see her go to prison, but it doesn't seem like anyone else does, which is interesting.
00:03:43
Speaker 2: Different story outside, of course.
00:03:44
Speaker 1: Different story outside.
00:03:45
Speaker 2: Seeing clashes, I mean, hopefully, I mean, I don't know how that's going to go, but hopefully everybody stays fairly level-headed, but just passions, folks are just inflamed on both sides of this issue and taking it out on each other to a certain degree. Like, how dare you this? Or how dare you that? We're not talking to each other. We're yelling at each other once again. On what is robes? You know I've been wowed at just how little there has to do with mother's mental health after having a baby. And that for hundreds of years the world has been trying to figure this out, but never really committed to doing so.
00:04:26
Speaker 1: And when you don't have perhaps that groundswell of support for a cause or to push research. When you have a large group of people in this country who don't even buy it, don't even believe it, chalk it up to, yeah, well, anybody who kills somebody must be mentally ill in some way, shape or form. So when you don't even have like that public pressure to do something more, it's likely not going to get done. And that is interesting. I was reading to you already some comments that I've seen up on some of our pages that And it's shocking to me. Everyone's been civil, but each comment, each person thinks the exact opposite of the other. And they've all been watching the trial. They've all been paying attention to the details and the information that's coming out. And everyone, and they're not just like, well, I think this or maybe that or I'd be open to this. No, 100%. Yep. She is a monster. This is the ultimate betrayal. A woman, a mother who kills her children belongs nowhere but behind bars for the rest of her life. And then you have other people saying, this is obviously an issue of postpartum psychosis. Mercy should be shown to this poor woman. There's nothing worse that she could experience beyond living in her own mind and in a world without her children. So why do you want to punish her further? But people are on it. The third group.
00:05:49
Speaker 2: Patrick did it.
00:05:50
Speaker 1: Oh, sorry. I actually totally forgot about that. But you know what? Even the people who don't think Patrick did it, I've still seen a lot of shade thrown at him for not having done more, for not having taken care of her more, for not having been a better advocate for her when she couldn't perhaps be her own advocate. Where was he throughout all of this? Why wasn't he making sure that his kids were safe? Yes. So he has definitely been, even if yes, that outlier group that believes that some, for some strange conspiratorial reason, he somehow actually orchestrated this whole thing and pinned it on her. Yes. That's, that's the vocal minority. Um, but there still is a group of people who think that he should be held responsible in some way, shape or form.
00:06:39
Speaker 2: Don't know how. I mean, it's hard. We weren't in that house. We weren't in that family. We weren't in that day-to-day. We just don't know. So it's difficult to judge from a distance. We can wonder. We can be curious. We can even ask a question. But the heat he's getting is obviously unnecessary.
00:06:56
Speaker 1: And unfounded. And unfair, in my opinion. It is. It's so easy to say, well, he should have known or he should have done this. I would argue that anyone who loves someone who has a partner... who may see that partner struggle and go through different periods in their life. I don't think you ever jumped to this place where you think that they could possibly be homicidal or suicidal. Most people don't want to believe that about the person they're sleeping in bed next to. And so I think it's reasonable for him not to have assumed or even thought possible what actually occurred. I bet you it never crossed his mind.
00:07:35
Speaker 2: Again, as we sit here, they have been in the jury deliberating room for only a matter of minutes. We hopped on as soon as they went through, I guess, the ceremony. They've been going through every morning in the courtroom. But they were at 17, right at about 17 hours when they went in. Now, if this goes to a full day, Robes, we are talking about some numbers. We're going to have to get up into 20-plus hours over a week of deliberating time. You start to scratch your head, like how long can this thing go?
00:08:05
Speaker 1: Well, and that was my question. How long does a judge, do the attorneys just accept no information, no questions, no indication about where this jury stands? At what point do they actually start to push or prod or question a little bit? It's very delicate. It's very tricky.
00:08:25
Speaker 2: But it's, the judge doesn't, I mean, quite literally, he can't just go back there and knock on the door and say, hey guys, just checking in. How are things going? That's not how it works. They have to do these things officially. They have to put them on the court record. So everybody has to be collected back in and whatnot. So if he was to ask them a question, he'd have to call them back in, say, hey, gang, what's up back there?
00:08:46
Speaker 1: And that's frowned upon.
00:08:47
Speaker 2: Judges, I honestly don't remember a single time a judge just did a status check.
00:08:53
Speaker 1: Yes, because it can be seen as pressuring the jury. So judges typically, just to give you an idea, and I actually wanted to look this up because I just thought, at what point is there some sort of an intervention? But judges avoid asking juries for updates about where they are or where things stand because, yes, it can absolutely pressure or some would even say coerce or convince a jury into speeding up the process or... in doing so compromising what their view is. So you don't ever want to be coercive or put pressure on jurors.
00:09:30
Speaker 2: If you're back there getting ready and I walk in three separate times and say, hey, how's it going?
00:09:36
Speaker 1: I feel pressure.
00:09:37
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:09:38
Speaker 1: To hurry up.
00:09:38
Speaker 2: That's the exact thing. It's natural. They're going to feel that. Well, is he checking? Are we taking too long? Yes, that makes sense.
00:09:44
Speaker 1: And so, yes, legally speaking, the proper way and the way we see this done is the jury controls the speed at which they deliberate. And if they feel like they can't come to a consensus of some kind. they will send a written note. We've seen this plenty of times to the judge saying, hey, we can't come to an agreement or we need something or we need help or we need clarification. And we just have to assume that things are going along as well as can be expected because they haven't sent a note saying they aren't going well.
00:10:19
Speaker 2: They're just working. That might just be it, Robes. They're just getting their work done. At what point? There won't be a point. They can do this all day long, all week long, all month long if they want to. There is no time limit on when they have to be done. Now, if they come out, Robes, and say they are a little hung up, a little stuck, This triggers a whole process. First of all, it's not like the judge can just write a note back and say something to them. Court has to go back in session, essentially.
00:10:53
Speaker 1: And the attorneys for both the Commonwealth and for the defense have to come together with the judge and decide on whether or not to give the jury a nudge, so to speak, a special instruction.
00:11:07
Speaker 2: But sometimes before they get to that, sometimes the judge will just say, hey, give it another shot. And keep it simple. But they have to negotiate the language that the judge is going to use. And I always find that little part interesting. The response has to be agreed to by the two sides. And to hear them want this word in there and not that thing, it's fascinating lawyering.
00:11:28
Speaker 1: We saw that in the Diddy trial because they came back pretty quickly and said, yeah, we can't figure this out. We're at an impasse, I believe they said. And so we got to watch the defense and the prosecution negotiate this. with the judge present about exactly how they would word telling the jury to continue to keep trying. But they were asking questions. They seemed engaged. Look, it was exciting just seeing the process as secretive as it is. Getting these little notes or getting these questions, it is interesting to feel like you're a part of the process, like you're trying to understand how this all works. It feels... I don't know. It feels strange not to have any idea what's going on in there. They're doing their work.
00:12:16
Speaker 2: They don't want to be bothered. I respect that. I don't mind that at all. Maybe that's just it. The work is going on. I would love to hear later how much they were yelling at each other over the doctors. I'm sure the doctors have to be playing so prominently in this negotiation.
00:12:34
Speaker 1: And how they feel about the doctors and how convincing they were, how credible they were. how discredited they became in certain moments with the defense doing what the defense did so well during this trial. Oh, my God.
00:12:48
Speaker 2: The defense did so well in this trial. You see him in court this morning. You did lay eyes on him. He just looks tired. They all look.
00:12:56
Speaker 1: Everybody looks tired.
00:12:57
Speaker 2: And this is stressful as hell for all of them.
00:13:00
Speaker 1: Waiting is the hardest part. That's what they always say. And if it's hard for us, like I said, I just can't imagine how Lindsay Clancy and her family feels right now just waiting to hear literally what the rest of her life is going to look like. And that's where we stand right now. When we come back, we're going to tell you what the judge is able to do in the state of Massachusetts if the jury says they cannot reach a verdict. Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. Yes, the waiting continues. As we record this, we are in the 17th hour of the fourth day of deliberations and we have no clue what this jury is thinking, where their deliberations stand. And we will continue to be in the dark until we hear directly from them. Now, if we do hear at some point that they are deadlocked, I was looking up because I've heard of the Allen charge before. The judge can first just say, keep trying. But eventually, he can formally, with the prosecution and the defense, come up with language and give the jury a formal Allen charge.
00:14:16
Speaker 2: I don't know how these things are legal. It seems so... They seem odd to... Like you are encouraging people to change their mind. I always found it weird, but they use it.
00:14:26
Speaker 1: It's controversial. It's controversial. But in Massachusetts, for whatever reason, the Allen charge isn't allowed. It's almost the exact same thing. They call it the Tui Rodriguez instructions. Yeah, they have their own. But basically, it's a last ditch effort to try and stop jury from being hung to prevent a mistrial. And it is considered controversial. And by the way, this isn't Allen charges or a Tui Rodriguez instruction. They're not legal in all states, but in Massachusetts, you can do it. And we did recently see this happen in the Karen Reed trial, her first trial, which was in Massachusetts. And interestingly enough, that ended in a mistrial. So it didn't help. They tried to give these instructions to the juror, like, come on, we know you can do it.
00:15:17
Speaker 2: And they didn't change their minds.
00:15:33
Speaker 1: And pressuring them to do so by basically you have to say, okay, I'll give up my position. You and I did a mock jury deliberations over the weekend. And look, I was, I felt like we were close enough. I was willing to go to manslaughter. I prefer not guilty by reason of insanity, but not everybody's willing to, to amend their position. And look, I think the difference between manslaughter and not guilty is It's still significant. That's still sending someone to prison. That's still, we don't know how long she may go. The judge has discretion from giving her zero to 20 years to a suspended sentence. He kind of has options, but there is the idea behind the manslaughter is that she should spend some time behind bars.
00:16:18
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, that's got to be what they're debating about. I don't think there's anybody in there so stuck in their position of first degree. You're hung if somebody in there says, I refuse to change my first-degree murder vote. You're going to have a hung jury. I think so, too. I don't think anybody would be that strongly in a position there.
00:16:36
Speaker 1: People online are. People outside the courthouse are.
00:16:39
Speaker 2: And they didn't see as much of the testimony as or any of it possibly.
00:16:45
Speaker 1: And it just has felt from the beginning with all the options this jury has that manslaughter is, and it seems like it would be, the compromise between For people who might really believe that she should be in jail for the rest of her life, that she should be behind bars, that she should be convicted of three counts of first-degree murder. And if you have on the other side people thinking that she should not go to prison at all, only be treated for her mental disorder. the manslaughter charge is meeting in the middle. And so we shall see if that's what happens, but we are watching. We are on the edge of our seats and we will jump on as soon as we get word, everyone. So we always appreciate you listening to us. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ Holmes. We'll talk soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Tuesday, September 1st, and as of this recording, the jury just got started with day four of deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. With that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Quite literally, they went in five minutes ago of this recording. Robes, we're waiting to See, we heard something of any kind in court this morning. It was nothing but, hi, go back and do your work.
00:00:29
Speaker 1: Yes. Have you read anything? Have you seen anything? Anything you want to tell me?
00:00:33
Speaker 2: Every morning.
00:00:34
Speaker 1: No answer. All good. Back to deliberations. This has been the quietest jury it feels like that I can recall. Usually you got something. You got a question. You got some sort of issue. A juror's late. A juror's sick. We've seen different moments pop up here and there.
00:00:52
Speaker 2: He lost a couple jurors.
00:00:53
Speaker 1: Yeah, he lost a couple jurors. And look, to have day four and not to have any idea whatsoever about how close they are, where they've gotten to, if anywhere, no questions, we don't have a clue. Not one.
00:01:10
Speaker 2: They have not asked one question related to this case. They asked him a question last week. Can we go home early?
00:01:18
Speaker 1: Yeah.
00:01:20
Speaker 2: That was it. That is literally the only question they have asked this judge having to... That is, of all that's going on, I figured as complicated as this is, I thought we were going to be getting notes left and right.
00:01:32
Speaker 1: Yes, so did I. And to know that we're now in the 17th hour of deliberations, and we don't have a clue if they're anywhere near reaching a consensus... And usually the questions will kind of let you see what they're focused on or what their sticking point might be or what they need more clarification on. And that can give you an indication of where they're leaning. When you hear nothing, it's unnerving. And we're sitting here on the edge of our seats, literally planning our day around not missing or being near a television and a microphone if this suddenly breaks. But can you imagine... Just the folks whose lives are about to be upended. Lindsay Clancy, her family, her friends, all of her supporters. I'm curious, is there anyone in that courtroom? Obviously, we know America is split, certainly by what we see online and what we've seen outside the courtroom. But in terms of close family and friends. Do you get the sense that there's anyone who has testified or who has been in that courtroom who is rooting for her to go to prison?
00:02:44
Speaker 2: Nobody in that courtroom, no. Because the victims, family members are sitting in there because they're the same family members of the defendant. I know a few seats have gone to very few members of the public, so I guess somebody like that could get in there. But as far as family goes, no, we've seen nothing. So she has a A courtroom of supporters and reporters, essentially.
00:03:08
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that's so unique. You don't typically see that. And with, like I said, as divided as America seems to be, it's interesting that in that courtroom, the folks who know all the parties involved seem to all be clearly on the side of Lindsay Clancy getting medical treatment, being committed to a hospital, the hospital she's been in for the past three years. And it doesn't feel like anyone... Maybe other than the prosecutors, obviously that side, that table, that one table wants to see her go to prison, but it doesn't seem like anyone else does, which is interesting.
00:03:43
Speaker 2: Different story outside, of course.
00:03:44
Speaker 1: Different story outside.
00:03:45
Speaker 2: Seeing clashes, I mean, hopefully, I mean, I don't know how that's going to go, but hopefully everybody stays fairly level-headed, but just passions, folks are just inflamed on both sides of this issue and taking it out on each other to a certain degree. Like, how dare you this? Or how dare you that? We're not talking to each other. We're yelling at each other once again. On what is robes? You know I've been wowed at just how little there has to do with mother's mental health after having a baby. And that for hundreds of years the world has been trying to figure this out, but never really committed to doing so.
00:04:26
Speaker 1: And when you don't have perhaps that groundswell of support for a cause or to push research. When you have a large group of people in this country who don't even buy it, don't even believe it, chalk it up to, yeah, well, anybody who kills somebody must be mentally ill in some way, shape or form. So when you don't even have like that public pressure to do something more, it's likely not going to get done. And that is interesting. I was reading to you already some comments that I've seen up on some of our pages that And it's shocking to me. Everyone's been civil, but each comment, each person thinks the exact opposite of the other. And they've all been watching the trial. They've all been paying attention to the details and the information that's coming out. And everyone, and they're not just like, well, I think this or maybe that or I'd be open to this. No, 100%. Yep. She is a monster. This is the ultimate betrayal. A woman, a mother who kills her children belongs nowhere but behind bars for the rest of her life. And then you have other people saying, this is obviously an issue of postpartum psychosis. Mercy should be shown to this poor woman. There's nothing worse that she could experience beyond living in her own mind and in a world without her children. So why do you want to punish her further? But people are on it. The third group.
00:05:49
Speaker 2: Patrick did it.
00:05:50
Speaker 1: Oh, sorry. I actually totally forgot about that. But you know what? Even the people who don't think Patrick did it, I've still seen a lot of shade thrown at him for not having done more, for not having taken care of her more, for not having been a better advocate for her when she couldn't perhaps be her own advocate. Where was he throughout all of this? Why wasn't he making sure that his kids were safe? Yes. So he has definitely been, even if yes, that outlier group that believes that some, for some strange conspiratorial reason, he somehow actually orchestrated this whole thing and pinned it on her. Yes. That's, that's the vocal minority. Um, but there still is a group of people who think that he should be held responsible in some way, shape or form.
00:06:39
Speaker 2: Don't know how. I mean, it's hard. We weren't in that house. We weren't in that family. We weren't in that day-to-day. We just don't know. So it's difficult to judge from a distance. We can wonder. We can be curious. We can even ask a question. But the heat he's getting is obviously unnecessary.
00:06:56
Speaker 1: And unfounded. And unfair, in my opinion. It is. It's so easy to say, well, he should have known or he should have done this. I would argue that anyone who loves someone who has a partner... who may see that partner struggle and go through different periods in their life. I don't think you ever jumped to this place where you think that they could possibly be homicidal or suicidal. Most people don't want to believe that about the person they're sleeping in bed next to. And so I think it's reasonable for him not to have assumed or even thought possible what actually occurred. I bet you it never crossed his mind.
00:07:35
Speaker 2: Again, as we sit here, they have been in the jury deliberating room for only a matter of minutes. We hopped on as soon as they went through, I guess, the ceremony. They've been going through every morning in the courtroom. But they were at 17, right at about 17 hours when they went in. Now, if this goes to a full day, Robes, we are talking about some numbers. We're going to have to get up into 20-plus hours over a week of deliberating time. You start to scratch your head, like how long can this thing go?
00:08:05
Speaker 1: Well, and that was my question. How long does a judge, do the attorneys just accept no information, no questions, no indication about where this jury stands? At what point do they actually start to push or prod or question a little bit? It's very delicate. It's very tricky.
00:08:25
Speaker 2: But it's, the judge doesn't, I mean, quite literally, he can't just go back there and knock on the door and say, hey guys, just checking in. How are things going? That's not how it works. They have to do these things officially. They have to put them on the court record. So everybody has to be collected back in and whatnot. So if he was to ask them a question, he'd have to call them back in, say, hey, gang, what's up back there?
00:08:46
Speaker 1: And that's frowned upon.
00:08:47
Speaker 2: Judges, I honestly don't remember a single time a judge just did a status check.
00:08:53
Speaker 1: Yes, because it can be seen as pressuring the jury. So judges typically, just to give you an idea, and I actually wanted to look this up because I just thought, at what point is there some sort of an intervention? But judges avoid asking juries for updates about where they are or where things stand because, yes, it can absolutely pressure or some would even say coerce or convince a jury into speeding up the process or... in doing so compromising what their view is. So you don't ever want to be coercive or put pressure on jurors.
00:09:30
Speaker 2: If you're back there getting ready and I walk in three separate times and say, hey, how's it going?
00:09:36
Speaker 1: I feel pressure.
00:09:37
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:09:38
Speaker 1: To hurry up.
00:09:38
Speaker 2: That's the exact thing. It's natural. They're going to feel that. Well, is he checking? Are we taking too long? Yes, that makes sense.
00:09:44
Speaker 1: And so, yes, legally speaking, the proper way and the way we see this done is the jury controls the speed at which they deliberate. And if they feel like they can't come to a consensus of some kind. they will send a written note. We've seen this plenty of times to the judge saying, hey, we can't come to an agreement or we need something or we need help or we need clarification. And we just have to assume that things are going along as well as can be expected because they haven't sent a note saying they aren't going well.
00:10:19
Speaker 2: They're just working. That might just be it, Robes. They're just getting their work done. At what point? There won't be a point. They can do this all day long, all week long, all month long if they want to. There is no time limit on when they have to be done. Now, if they come out, Robes, and say they are a little hung up, a little stuck, This triggers a whole process. First of all, it's not like the judge can just write a note back and say something to them. Court has to go back in session, essentially.
00:10:53
Speaker 1: And the attorneys for both the Commonwealth and for the defense have to come together with the judge and decide on whether or not to give the jury a nudge, so to speak, a special instruction.
00:11:07
Speaker 2: But sometimes before they get to that, sometimes the judge will just say, hey, give it another shot. And keep it simple. But they have to negotiate the language that the judge is going to use. And I always find that little part interesting. The response has to be agreed to by the two sides. And to hear them want this word in there and not that thing, it's fascinating lawyering.
00:11:28
Speaker 1: We saw that in the Diddy trial because they came back pretty quickly and said, yeah, we can't figure this out. We're at an impasse, I believe they said. And so we got to watch the defense and the prosecution negotiate this. with the judge present about exactly how they would word telling the jury to continue to keep trying. But they were asking questions. They seemed engaged. Look, it was exciting just seeing the process as secretive as it is. Getting these little notes or getting these questions, it is interesting to feel like you're a part of the process, like you're trying to understand how this all works. It feels... I don't know. It feels strange not to have any idea what's going on in there. They're doing their work.
00:12:16
Speaker 2: They don't want to be bothered. I respect that. I don't mind that at all. Maybe that's just it. The work is going on. I would love to hear later how much they were yelling at each other over the doctors. I'm sure the doctors have to be playing so prominently in this negotiation.
00:12:34
Speaker 1: And how they feel about the doctors and how convincing they were, how credible they were. how discredited they became in certain moments with the defense doing what the defense did so well during this trial. Oh, my God.
00:12:48
Speaker 2: The defense did so well in this trial. You see him in court this morning. You did lay eyes on him. He just looks tired. They all look.
00:12:56
Speaker 1: Everybody looks tired.
00:12:57
Speaker 2: And this is stressful as hell for all of them.
00:13:00
Speaker 1: Waiting is the hardest part. That's what they always say. And if it's hard for us, like I said, I just can't imagine how Lindsay Clancy and her family feels right now just waiting to hear literally what the rest of her life is going to look like. And that's where we stand right now. When we come back, we're going to tell you what the judge is able to do in the state of Massachusetts if the jury says they cannot reach a verdict. Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. Yes, the waiting continues. As we record this, we are in the 17th hour of the fourth day of deliberations and we have no clue what this jury is thinking, where their deliberations stand. And we will continue to be in the dark until we hear directly from them. Now, if we do hear at some point that they are deadlocked, I was looking up because I've heard of the Allen charge before. The judge can first just say, keep trying. But eventually, he can formally, with the prosecution and the defense, come up with language and give the jury a formal Allen charge.
00:14:16
Speaker 2: I don't know how these things are legal. It seems so... They seem odd to... Like you are encouraging people to change their mind. I always found it weird, but they use it.
00:14:26
Speaker 1: It's controversial. It's controversial. But in Massachusetts, for whatever reason, the Allen charge isn't allowed. It's almost the exact same thing. They call it the Tui Rodriguez instructions. Yeah, they have their own. But basically, it's a last ditch effort to try and stop jury from being hung to prevent a mistrial. And it is considered controversial. And by the way, this isn't Allen charges or a Tui Rodriguez instruction. They're not legal in all states, but in Massachusetts, you can do it. And we did recently see this happen in the Karen Reed trial, her first trial, which was in Massachusetts. And interestingly enough, that ended in a mistrial. So it didn't help. They tried to give these instructions to the juror, like, come on, we know you can do it.
00:15:17
Speaker 2: And they didn't change their minds.
00:15:33
Speaker 1: And pressuring them to do so by basically you have to say, okay, I'll give up my position. You and I did a mock jury deliberations over the weekend. And look, I was, I felt like we were close enough. I was willing to go to manslaughter. I prefer not guilty by reason of insanity, but not everybody's willing to, to amend their position. And look, I think the difference between manslaughter and not guilty is It's still significant. That's still sending someone to prison. That's still, we don't know how long she may go. The judge has discretion from giving her zero to 20 years to a suspended sentence. He kind of has options, but there is the idea behind the manslaughter is that she should spend some time behind bars.
00:16:18
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, that's got to be what they're debating about. I don't think there's anybody in there so stuck in their position of first degree. You're hung if somebody in there says, I refuse to change my first-degree murder vote. You're going to have a hung jury. I think so, too. I don't think anybody would be that strongly in a position there.
00:16:36
Speaker 1: People online are. People outside the courthouse are.
00:16:39
Speaker 2: And they didn't see as much of the testimony as or any of it possibly.
00:16:45
Speaker 1: And it just has felt from the beginning with all the options this jury has that manslaughter is, and it seems like it would be, the compromise between For people who might really believe that she should be in jail for the rest of her life, that she should be behind bars, that she should be convicted of three counts of first-degree murder. And if you have on the other side people thinking that she should not go to prison at all, only be treated for her mental disorder. the manslaughter charge is meeting in the middle. And so we shall see if that's what happens, but we are watching. We are on the edge of our seats and we will jump on as soon as we get word, everyone. So we always appreciate you listening to us. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ Holmes. We'll talk soon.