Sept. 4, 2026
**NO VERDICT** Killer Mom Trial: Judge Officially Declares MISTRIAL
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed A one hour delay, turned into a three hour ordeal, that ultimately ended in a mistrial. After a judge from the Massachusetts Supreme Court denied the defense’s last-ditch effort for an emergency stay, Judge Sullivan officially declared a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. There was no emotion on the faces of Lindsay Clancy, her family, or any of the jurors after the announcement was made, following 40 hours of deliberations and a grueling 5 week trial. There is already a status hearing on the books to prepare for a possible retrial, which the DA has not committed to as of yet, set for the end of the month.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Friday, September 4th. It is officially a mistrial. Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. The Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial ends in six weeks, 40 hours of deliberations, no decision, and a mistrial. Robes, it's hard to just ask you your reaction to what's happened because so much happened. But let me just get the initial. We've been watching this thing every single step of the way for six weeks. Just what your reaction is. knowing there is no decision?
00:00:35
Speaker 3: I feel exhausted emotionally and disappointed in how everything occurred. And I just, I feel frustrated for everyone. I feel frustrated for people who felt passionately about guilt or innocence. I feel, I feel awful for everyone who put in so much work, the attorneys, the judge, Even the defendant, Lindsey Clancy, the people who were supporting her, the people who testified, all the work and energy and effort. And yeah, I feel terrible for the jurors.
00:01:13
Speaker 1: And no result. No result.
00:01:15
Speaker 2: Folks, if we sound it, it's been a hell of a week. We can't imagine what it's been like for them. But what has happened today was not just a matter of them coming back and saying, we can't make a decision. Robes, this was drama on top of drama. on top of drama today, even to get to a mistrial. So if you had been keeping up today, earlier, the juries came back with a note, and Robes, it started with heartfelt, what was the line they said?
00:01:44
Speaker 3: Heavy hearts.
00:01:45
Speaker 1: Heavy hearts.
00:01:45
Speaker 3: With heavy hearts.
00:01:47
Speaker 2: We report that we cannot reach a unanimous decision and won't be able to do so. That was supposed to be the end of it. So the judge comes in, says otherwise, I don't feel like I have any other.
00:01:59
Speaker 1: What were the words? He said it.
00:02:00
Speaker 3: I have no choice but to declare a mistrial.
00:02:04
Speaker 2: At this point, I have to declare a mistrial at this point. And at that point, they started sending the jury in. They started coming from the deliberation room. But before they could get their robes, Reddington got up. And this is where a very fascinating several hours of a back and forth went on that.
00:02:24
Speaker 1: Held up a mistrial.
00:02:26
Speaker 3: That's right. We actually had to wait an additional three hours after the 40 hours of deliberations to end up at the same place that was being feared. Like that was the biggest fear.
00:02:41
Speaker 1: He said it. He said, I'm going to declare a mistrial. And then we waited.
00:02:47
Speaker 3: I guess this is how our legal process works. It might not be efficient. It might be frustrating. It might take more time than most people were willing to accept, and yet we, yes, arrived at the same conclusion that we could have arrived at three hours ago. But, look, there's something to be said that there was a little leniency given so that all possible appeals were at least attempted in the timeframe that was allowed. Look, we're up against Labor Day weekend. It's Friday afternoon.
00:03:25
Speaker 1: Mm-hmm.
00:03:26
Speaker 3: And for them to even have or find a Supreme Court justice willing to hear the arguments in a last-minute, last-ditch effort by the defense to put an emergency stay on this declaration the judge was about to make, I get it. And so, yes, it was... A lot. It was exhausting, emotionally exhausting for all the folks who have been through it over the past six weeks.
00:03:54
Speaker 2: Yes, and to explain here what's been happening the past several hours was after the judge said he was going to declare mistrial, Reddington, the defense attorney, asked for a stay. He said he wanted to file an appeal with the highest court in Massachusetts. You're able to do that mid-trial... But you can only make that appeal to one of those Supreme Justices. So he said he wanted to do this. Judge Sullivan was kind of exasperated.
00:04:22
Speaker 1: He said, well, how long is it going to take? He said, I'll give you an hour.
00:04:26
Speaker 2: I think we all knew it was going to take longer than an hour. So the process started of trying to track down a Supreme Court justice in the state of Massachusetts within that hour. It took longer than the hour. What's the official? Help me with the timing, Rob. It was at what time did this happen that he said you have an hour?
00:04:43
Speaker 3: It was around 11.30, I thought. 11.30 specifically.
00:04:46
Speaker 1: Yeah, and then it went to 12.30 and then it went to lunch.
00:04:48
Speaker 3: Correct.
00:04:49
Speaker 1: That's right. So at 11.30.
00:04:51
Speaker 2: And then at 12.30 came, 12.30 went.
00:04:54
Speaker 1: Lunch came.
00:04:56
Speaker 3: One o'clock came and it went.
00:04:58
Speaker 2: When lunch came, everybody said, well, I'm not going to get anything until two o'clock because the court's on lunch. And yes, we knew it was going to take a little longer. In three hours it took. Robes, this is just, what a process. I don't know what the jury was told, what they were being told while all this was going on.
00:05:12
Speaker 3: We wondered, are they being told that there was some sort of last minute appeal that was taking place and to hold tight, to not deliberate any further, but to just, I'm sure they were fine with that, but to hold tight and to... Wait and see. I don't know how much they were told about what was actually happening. I had that question.
00:05:35
Speaker 2: Because they thought they were about to get out of there, and then they ended up there another three hours. They thought they were done and ended up there another three hours. I don't know how much they would have had to tell them.
00:05:46
Speaker 1: So Robes now. What does happen now? This is a mistrial.
00:05:53
Speaker 2: Robes, the discussion they were having in court before they finally adjourned, They're going to retry this woman.
00:06:01
Speaker 3: Oh, they already have another court date on the books. Kevin Reddington wanted to retry this case as soon as next week. He wasn't kidding when he told reporters who had asked him if there was a mistrial, would you be willing to retry this case? And if so, when? And he was like, next week. And that's kind of exactly what he said in open court.
00:06:25
Speaker 2: He said a week from, what's this, we're talking on Friday. So a week from Monday, he said he was ready to rock. And the judge said, you know what, I'd rather do it sooner than later, but I'm not sure if it was that soon.
00:06:36
Speaker 3: Right, that was a little quick. But look, by the end of this month, they are going to be back in court, which just seems crazy. Overwhelming. And look, this is coming from somebody who's just been an observer. I cannot imagine being a participant and realizing that this is all about to happen again.
00:07:04
Speaker 1: There is a world.
00:07:05
Speaker 2: There is a world in which there is a plea deal of some kind worked out. I think it's in the interest of both sides not to do this again. But if you have, if you are, as the state robes Believing that this woman is nothing short of a triple murderer of children. You can't go from believing that to just saying, okay, we'll put her in a mental hospital. Rose, they have to keep going after her, don't they?
00:07:33
Speaker 3: So you're saying that nothing short of manslaughter would make sense for the prosecution with prison time. And I would argue, we heard Kevin Reddington say this very bluntly yesterday. We kicked the shit out. out of their case. So he is of the belief. And I think justifiably so given where we believe the jurors were leaning and we look, we have to hear officially from the jurors themselves, the 11 to one, what we're hearing that there were 11 who thought one verdict was appropriate and then one who did not. Everyone is assuming that the 11 were going to vote not guilty, but we don't know that officially.
00:08:17
Speaker 1: Isn't that still kind of remarkable?
00:08:20
Speaker 2: That's kind of impressive that 11 got to that.
00:08:23
Speaker 1: That's kind of huge.
00:08:24
Speaker 3: And so that is only going to further bolster or make Kevin Reddington even more confident that given another set of jurors, he can win this case. He can get his client zero prison time. So I have... I don't believe for one second that he would accept anything less than no prison time. So?
00:08:49
Speaker 2: So they are just as entrenched as the rest of the country then, babe. You cannot, as the state, go from this is a triple murderer of children to, yeah, some probationary time is fine.
00:09:00
Speaker 1: You just can't. That means you didn't believe in your case in the first place.
00:09:05
Speaker 3: That doesn't look good for the district attorney's office. Absolutely not. Why would you pursue charges? The only argument could be made that you have now seen in court how it all played out. You have seen how at least 11 jurors would have what the verdict would have been for them. And if it was against your recommendation of first degree murder, maybe you only try the next time with manslaughter. Maybe that's your... maybe you take first degree and second degree off the table. I don't know if they adjust in any way, shape, or form, but don't they typically do, aren't they allowed to do juror interviews to determine where those, where their state of mind was, and then they can actually kind of evaluate where they went wrong, what didn't work, what wasn't believable, where the evidence fell short, and then maybe they make their determination about what charges to bring after they actually get to sit down and talk to the jury.
00:10:03
Speaker 2: I am so fascinated to know what happened in that jury room. And I think we'll find out. I do too.
00:10:10
Speaker 1: You know what? It might even be tonight.
00:10:12
Speaker 2: It could be. Somebody sitting on the set of some show somewhere telling their story.
00:10:17
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be surprised at all.
00:10:19
Speaker 3: Can you imagine if you were just one of those jurors who was so frustrated, who so clearly saw things one way, and you only saw one person, one juror, standing in the way of something that was very obvious to... Like, maybe it was always 11 to 1. We don't know. Maybe it was 6 to 6, and some people were brought over. But maybe, maybe it was always that significantly weighted in the direction of the defense. So I would imagine those folks... would be fairly frustrated and would want to air it out, would want to talk about the process, would want to talk about what they were dealing with in that jury room, I feel pretty confident at least one of them is going to want to talk.
00:11:01
Speaker 1: I think we'll hear tonight. I think we'll hear from one of them tonight.
00:11:05
Speaker 3: I wouldn't be surprised.
00:11:06
Speaker 1: They're so exhausted, I know, at this point. Yeah.
00:11:10
Speaker 2: But we didn't get word on another request that actually Kevin Reddington was making from the judge.
00:11:27
Speaker 3: Welcome back, everyone, to Amy and TJ. And yes, we are all now. We have an outcome. It's not the outcome I think that anybody wanted. A verdict is always preferable. And this is really rare. So much about this case is singular. Only 5% to 6% of all criminal trials end in a hung jury. There's that. And then of the 5% to 6%, have we ever seen anything like this where we have The judge was almost in mid-sentence. In my mind, he had the gavel in the air. He was about to come down, declaring a mistrial. And the defense attorney was able to stop the judge nearly almost mid-sentence and appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. He found a justice on the Friday before Labor Day to hear his case. And, you know, they argued that that there was some bias against folks who have mental illness. Like, they were throwing out all the stops, saying that Lindsay Clancy was denied her constitutional rights. They tried every legal maneuver you could think of.
00:12:38
Speaker 1: Nothing worked.
00:12:39
Speaker 3: Nothing worked.
00:12:40
Speaker 1: It took this judge... You know what?
00:12:42
Speaker 2: We were watching this, and by the time it ended to the time... It was within half hour, wasn't it?
00:12:46
Speaker 3: Yes. And so... Alas, yes, we are officially in a mistrial, but there are still some questions that need to be answered. And among them, we need to know, and I didn't realize this, but if the jury unanimously, as a group of 12, ruled out first-degree murder, say they ruled out second-degree murder, maybe the holdout juror wanted manslaughter. Maybe the rest of the jurors wanted not guilty by reason of insanity. And if that is the case, technically they could put into place double jeopardy rules where they're saying you had a jury of 12 unanimously agree that she was not guilty of second degree murder. We don't know if there was a charge that all of the jurors agreed didn't apply. And if that is determined to be the case, it's my understanding that she then can't be charged with it again or tried again.
00:13:42
Speaker 1: Would they have said that in open court, though? Because they didn't.
00:13:46
Speaker 2: So I don't know if it was a matter that was taken up or not. This is the most bizarre end to a case I have ever seen, Robes. And I think the district attorney is about to make a statement here in just a second. I'm curious to what he's about to say. I guess they're going to tell us whether or not they are going to Robes. Try this lady again, because the way this goes, they have to do something because the charges either need to remain or they need to be dropped. So they have to make a declaration of what they're going to do with her.
00:14:25
Speaker 1: Yes. Otherwise she would be a free woman.
00:14:27
Speaker 3: Absolutely. The judge has set a hearing. We know this for September 29th. And that is where Kevin Reddington is expected to ask the judge to To declare Lindsay Clancy not guilty. So he's still trying to avoid another trial. And I guess there is some legal maneuvering in which that could take place. We've seen Kevin Reddington try a bunch of Hail Marys. I guess you could put it like that. Legal Hail Marys here towards the end. Trying to avoid the outcome that we've actually seen taking place today. And this was all in an attempt to get a verdict. But the jury was dismissed. So this jury will no longer be a part of this case. And we are now, as we're recording this, by the way, the district attorney is giving a press conference right outside of the courthouse.
00:15:20
Speaker 2: No decisions made about a retrial. Got to be meeting with his team. I'm reading this as we're talking here. So please read as well so you can catch the stuff I'm missing. But the DA has just come out. and said no decisions have been made about whether or not there will be a retrial of Lindsey Clancy. He said he's going to be meeting with his team, meeting with his lawyers, and the decision will be made then. But at this point, Robes, wow, they don't know.
00:15:45
Speaker 3: They're thanking the jury. They're thanking the jury for their service and their commitment. But look, that is significant, the fact that a lot of times you would see the DA come out and say, we are retrying this case. we are going to see this through to the end. We've absolutely seen those moments. This is, I would say fairly unusual. They're not being bullish about this. They are saying we need, we need a sec. We need a moment. We need to take a beat. We need to probably reevaluate our case, maybe talk to the jurors and figure out if this case is worth re trying. Obviously they have the option of trying to negotiate with the defense and coming up with some sort of plea deal that everyone can be okay with. But look, this is going to be a tall task. This is a huge undertaking for them to retry this case. It's taxpayer dollars at stake, and the district attorney is well aware of that.
00:16:40
Speaker 2: Can you get a conviction? You're going to go through this if you don't think you can get a conviction. He's talking about the... He's still... He's talking like a man who wants to retry because he's talking about getting justice for the victims, those three little ones, right?
00:16:53
Speaker 3: So.
00:16:55
Speaker 2: I don't know how they make this balance and maybe he's not ready right now. But how can you, what is just, if you fought this hard to bring somebody to justice, how could you take anything less, baby?
00:17:10
Speaker 1: Yeah.
00:17:10
Speaker 3: I mean, they say, he just reiterated, our job is to seek justice for those three babies who were murdered. And they're acknowledging there are strong feelings. They are acknowledging there are differing opinions. It's interesting, after everything we watched in this trial for six weeks, and then these long deliberations, I thought it was of note. All of the reporters in that room, when the mistrial was declared- they described the scene as no emotion. They said neither the jury nor the Clancy family nor Lindsay Clancy herself showed any emotion as the judge announced the mistrial. It's almost as if they knew this was coming and it was, everyone felt defeated. Like no one felt like this was a win in any way, shape or form.
00:18:01
Speaker 2: Hey, I'm surprised Rob. He's, he's, he's carrying the same torch that his, uh, his, uh, prosecutors were. Um, He said this is not about women's health. This is not about our health care system. This is not about anything other than the cruel and calculated killings of three innocents by Lindsay Glancy. How can you not prosecute her then? How can you not try her again, Robes? If he's sticking, he's coming out and restating their case. This is not about mental health and women. This is about one woman who did this.
00:18:34
Speaker 3: And so if you take him at his word right now, even though he says they're going to take some time to assess whether or not to bring charges again, it does sound like he is right now leaning towards continuing on and pursuing a second trial. And that is all going to be meted out on September 29th. They have some time. They have a couple weeks to get their ducks in a row and really take a look at the evidence, really take a look at the reaction by the jury, and certainly maybe even... Take the temperature of people in Massachusetts. What do they want? How are they feeling?
00:19:08
Speaker 1: He represents the people.
00:19:08
Speaker 2: Well, that's funny you just said that. He said we're not making a decision based on the sentiments of the public.
00:19:12
Speaker 3: That's funny.
00:19:12
Speaker 1: That's funny.
00:19:13
Speaker 3: That is funny because I was thinking maybe he would. This is an elected office. So, yes, it does matter what people think about the job you've done, the cases you've chosen to pursue, and how you've chosen to litigate them.
00:19:25
Speaker 2: This is something, a question we had. He just pointed out in his statement that the two prosecutors, the ladies, are mothers themselves.
00:19:32
Speaker 1: And I wondered about that.
00:19:33
Speaker 3: I wondered if they were. I wondered if they were. And they are standing next to him, stone-faced. And look, I don't know. This isn't a win for anybody. And it's hard to even argue in a case like this that anybody would win. And I think Kevin Reddington pointed that out the other day. by saying there are no winners. This is a tragedy, period. No question about it. But at issue, who is to blame? Does the medical folks who were supposed to take care of Lindsay, do they bear culpability? Is it all on Lindsay? Who is to blame for the deaths of these three young children beyond Lindsay Clancy? Or is it just her? And that is the question that it looks like we will have another jury set to decide here sooner rather than later. So we'll continue to keep our eye. Any new developments, of course, we'll hop on and let you know. Thanks for sticking with us throughout all of this. We appreciate you. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ Holmes. We'll talk soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Friday, September 4th. It is officially a mistrial. Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. The Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial ends in six weeks, 40 hours of deliberations, no decision, and a mistrial. Robes, it's hard to just ask you your reaction to what's happened because so much happened. But let me just get the initial. We've been watching this thing every single step of the way for six weeks. Just what your reaction is. knowing there is no decision?
00:00:35
Speaker 3: I feel exhausted emotionally and disappointed in how everything occurred. And I just, I feel frustrated for everyone. I feel frustrated for people who felt passionately about guilt or innocence. I feel, I feel awful for everyone who put in so much work, the attorneys, the judge, Even the defendant, Lindsey Clancy, the people who were supporting her, the people who testified, all the work and energy and effort. And yeah, I feel terrible for the jurors.
00:01:13
Speaker 1: And no result. No result.
00:01:15
Speaker 2: Folks, if we sound it, it's been a hell of a week. We can't imagine what it's been like for them. But what has happened today was not just a matter of them coming back and saying, we can't make a decision. Robes, this was drama on top of drama. on top of drama today, even to get to a mistrial. So if you had been keeping up today, earlier, the juries came back with a note, and Robes, it started with heartfelt, what was the line they said?
00:01:44
Speaker 3: Heavy hearts.
00:01:45
Speaker 1: Heavy hearts.
00:01:45
Speaker 3: With heavy hearts.
00:01:47
Speaker 2: We report that we cannot reach a unanimous decision and won't be able to do so. That was supposed to be the end of it. So the judge comes in, says otherwise, I don't feel like I have any other.
00:01:59
Speaker 1: What were the words? He said it.
00:02:00
Speaker 3: I have no choice but to declare a mistrial.
00:02:04
Speaker 2: At this point, I have to declare a mistrial at this point. And at that point, they started sending the jury in. They started coming from the deliberation room. But before they could get their robes, Reddington got up. And this is where a very fascinating several hours of a back and forth went on that.
00:02:24
Speaker 1: Held up a mistrial.
00:02:26
Speaker 3: That's right. We actually had to wait an additional three hours after the 40 hours of deliberations to end up at the same place that was being feared. Like that was the biggest fear.
00:02:41
Speaker 1: He said it. He said, I'm going to declare a mistrial. And then we waited.
00:02:47
Speaker 3: I guess this is how our legal process works. It might not be efficient. It might be frustrating. It might take more time than most people were willing to accept, and yet we, yes, arrived at the same conclusion that we could have arrived at three hours ago. But, look, there's something to be said that there was a little leniency given so that all possible appeals were at least attempted in the timeframe that was allowed. Look, we're up against Labor Day weekend. It's Friday afternoon.
00:03:25
Speaker 1: Mm-hmm.
00:03:26
Speaker 3: And for them to even have or find a Supreme Court justice willing to hear the arguments in a last-minute, last-ditch effort by the defense to put an emergency stay on this declaration the judge was about to make, I get it. And so, yes, it was... A lot. It was exhausting, emotionally exhausting for all the folks who have been through it over the past six weeks.
00:03:54
Speaker 2: Yes, and to explain here what's been happening the past several hours was after the judge said he was going to declare mistrial, Reddington, the defense attorney, asked for a stay. He said he wanted to file an appeal with the highest court in Massachusetts. You're able to do that mid-trial... But you can only make that appeal to one of those Supreme Justices. So he said he wanted to do this. Judge Sullivan was kind of exasperated.
00:04:22
Speaker 1: He said, well, how long is it going to take? He said, I'll give you an hour.
00:04:26
Speaker 2: I think we all knew it was going to take longer than an hour. So the process started of trying to track down a Supreme Court justice in the state of Massachusetts within that hour. It took longer than the hour. What's the official? Help me with the timing, Rob. It was at what time did this happen that he said you have an hour?
00:04:43
Speaker 3: It was around 11.30, I thought. 11.30 specifically.
00:04:46
Speaker 1: Yeah, and then it went to 12.30 and then it went to lunch.
00:04:48
Speaker 3: Correct.
00:04:49
Speaker 1: That's right. So at 11.30.
00:04:51
Speaker 2: And then at 12.30 came, 12.30 went.
00:04:54
Speaker 1: Lunch came.
00:04:56
Speaker 3: One o'clock came and it went.
00:04:58
Speaker 2: When lunch came, everybody said, well, I'm not going to get anything until two o'clock because the court's on lunch. And yes, we knew it was going to take a little longer. In three hours it took. Robes, this is just, what a process. I don't know what the jury was told, what they were being told while all this was going on.
00:05:12
Speaker 3: We wondered, are they being told that there was some sort of last minute appeal that was taking place and to hold tight, to not deliberate any further, but to just, I'm sure they were fine with that, but to hold tight and to... Wait and see. I don't know how much they were told about what was actually happening. I had that question.
00:05:35
Speaker 2: Because they thought they were about to get out of there, and then they ended up there another three hours. They thought they were done and ended up there another three hours. I don't know how much they would have had to tell them.
00:05:46
Speaker 1: So Robes now. What does happen now? This is a mistrial.
00:05:53
Speaker 2: Robes, the discussion they were having in court before they finally adjourned, They're going to retry this woman.
00:06:01
Speaker 3: Oh, they already have another court date on the books. Kevin Reddington wanted to retry this case as soon as next week. He wasn't kidding when he told reporters who had asked him if there was a mistrial, would you be willing to retry this case? And if so, when? And he was like, next week. And that's kind of exactly what he said in open court.
00:06:25
Speaker 2: He said a week from, what's this, we're talking on Friday. So a week from Monday, he said he was ready to rock. And the judge said, you know what, I'd rather do it sooner than later, but I'm not sure if it was that soon.
00:06:36
Speaker 3: Right, that was a little quick. But look, by the end of this month, they are going to be back in court, which just seems crazy. Overwhelming. And look, this is coming from somebody who's just been an observer. I cannot imagine being a participant and realizing that this is all about to happen again.
00:07:04
Speaker 1: There is a world.
00:07:05
Speaker 2: There is a world in which there is a plea deal of some kind worked out. I think it's in the interest of both sides not to do this again. But if you have, if you are, as the state robes Believing that this woman is nothing short of a triple murderer of children. You can't go from believing that to just saying, okay, we'll put her in a mental hospital. Rose, they have to keep going after her, don't they?
00:07:33
Speaker 3: So you're saying that nothing short of manslaughter would make sense for the prosecution with prison time. And I would argue, we heard Kevin Reddington say this very bluntly yesterday. We kicked the shit out. out of their case. So he is of the belief. And I think justifiably so given where we believe the jurors were leaning and we look, we have to hear officially from the jurors themselves, the 11 to one, what we're hearing that there were 11 who thought one verdict was appropriate and then one who did not. Everyone is assuming that the 11 were going to vote not guilty, but we don't know that officially.
00:08:17
Speaker 1: Isn't that still kind of remarkable?
00:08:20
Speaker 2: That's kind of impressive that 11 got to that.
00:08:23
Speaker 1: That's kind of huge.
00:08:24
Speaker 3: And so that is only going to further bolster or make Kevin Reddington even more confident that given another set of jurors, he can win this case. He can get his client zero prison time. So I have... I don't believe for one second that he would accept anything less than no prison time. So?
00:08:49
Speaker 2: So they are just as entrenched as the rest of the country then, babe. You cannot, as the state, go from this is a triple murderer of children to, yeah, some probationary time is fine.
00:09:00
Speaker 1: You just can't. That means you didn't believe in your case in the first place.
00:09:05
Speaker 3: That doesn't look good for the district attorney's office. Absolutely not. Why would you pursue charges? The only argument could be made that you have now seen in court how it all played out. You have seen how at least 11 jurors would have what the verdict would have been for them. And if it was against your recommendation of first degree murder, maybe you only try the next time with manslaughter. Maybe that's your... maybe you take first degree and second degree off the table. I don't know if they adjust in any way, shape, or form, but don't they typically do, aren't they allowed to do juror interviews to determine where those, where their state of mind was, and then they can actually kind of evaluate where they went wrong, what didn't work, what wasn't believable, where the evidence fell short, and then maybe they make their determination about what charges to bring after they actually get to sit down and talk to the jury.
00:10:03
Speaker 2: I am so fascinated to know what happened in that jury room. And I think we'll find out. I do too.
00:10:10
Speaker 1: You know what? It might even be tonight.
00:10:12
Speaker 2: It could be. Somebody sitting on the set of some show somewhere telling their story.
00:10:17
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be surprised at all.
00:10:19
Speaker 3: Can you imagine if you were just one of those jurors who was so frustrated, who so clearly saw things one way, and you only saw one person, one juror, standing in the way of something that was very obvious to... Like, maybe it was always 11 to 1. We don't know. Maybe it was 6 to 6, and some people were brought over. But maybe, maybe it was always that significantly weighted in the direction of the defense. So I would imagine those folks... would be fairly frustrated and would want to air it out, would want to talk about the process, would want to talk about what they were dealing with in that jury room, I feel pretty confident at least one of them is going to want to talk.
00:11:01
Speaker 1: I think we'll hear tonight. I think we'll hear from one of them tonight.
00:11:05
Speaker 3: I wouldn't be surprised.
00:11:06
Speaker 1: They're so exhausted, I know, at this point. Yeah.
00:11:10
Speaker 2: But we didn't get word on another request that actually Kevin Reddington was making from the judge.
00:11:27
Speaker 3: Welcome back, everyone, to Amy and TJ. And yes, we are all now. We have an outcome. It's not the outcome I think that anybody wanted. A verdict is always preferable. And this is really rare. So much about this case is singular. Only 5% to 6% of all criminal trials end in a hung jury. There's that. And then of the 5% to 6%, have we ever seen anything like this where we have The judge was almost in mid-sentence. In my mind, he had the gavel in the air. He was about to come down, declaring a mistrial. And the defense attorney was able to stop the judge nearly almost mid-sentence and appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. He found a justice on the Friday before Labor Day to hear his case. And, you know, they argued that that there was some bias against folks who have mental illness. Like, they were throwing out all the stops, saying that Lindsay Clancy was denied her constitutional rights. They tried every legal maneuver you could think of.
00:12:38
Speaker 1: Nothing worked.
00:12:39
Speaker 3: Nothing worked.
00:12:40
Speaker 1: It took this judge... You know what?
00:12:42
Speaker 2: We were watching this, and by the time it ended to the time... It was within half hour, wasn't it?
00:12:46
Speaker 3: Yes. And so... Alas, yes, we are officially in a mistrial, but there are still some questions that need to be answered. And among them, we need to know, and I didn't realize this, but if the jury unanimously, as a group of 12, ruled out first-degree murder, say they ruled out second-degree murder, maybe the holdout juror wanted manslaughter. Maybe the rest of the jurors wanted not guilty by reason of insanity. And if that is the case, technically they could put into place double jeopardy rules where they're saying you had a jury of 12 unanimously agree that she was not guilty of second degree murder. We don't know if there was a charge that all of the jurors agreed didn't apply. And if that is determined to be the case, it's my understanding that she then can't be charged with it again or tried again.
00:13:42
Speaker 1: Would they have said that in open court, though? Because they didn't.
00:13:46
Speaker 2: So I don't know if it was a matter that was taken up or not. This is the most bizarre end to a case I have ever seen, Robes. And I think the district attorney is about to make a statement here in just a second. I'm curious to what he's about to say. I guess they're going to tell us whether or not they are going to Robes. Try this lady again, because the way this goes, they have to do something because the charges either need to remain or they need to be dropped. So they have to make a declaration of what they're going to do with her.
00:14:25
Speaker 1: Yes. Otherwise she would be a free woman.
00:14:27
Speaker 3: Absolutely. The judge has set a hearing. We know this for September 29th. And that is where Kevin Reddington is expected to ask the judge to To declare Lindsay Clancy not guilty. So he's still trying to avoid another trial. And I guess there is some legal maneuvering in which that could take place. We've seen Kevin Reddington try a bunch of Hail Marys. I guess you could put it like that. Legal Hail Marys here towards the end. Trying to avoid the outcome that we've actually seen taking place today. And this was all in an attempt to get a verdict. But the jury was dismissed. So this jury will no longer be a part of this case. And we are now, as we're recording this, by the way, the district attorney is giving a press conference right outside of the courthouse.
00:15:20
Speaker 2: No decisions made about a retrial. Got to be meeting with his team. I'm reading this as we're talking here. So please read as well so you can catch the stuff I'm missing. But the DA has just come out. and said no decisions have been made about whether or not there will be a retrial of Lindsey Clancy. He said he's going to be meeting with his team, meeting with his lawyers, and the decision will be made then. But at this point, Robes, wow, they don't know.
00:15:45
Speaker 3: They're thanking the jury. They're thanking the jury for their service and their commitment. But look, that is significant, the fact that a lot of times you would see the DA come out and say, we are retrying this case. we are going to see this through to the end. We've absolutely seen those moments. This is, I would say fairly unusual. They're not being bullish about this. They are saying we need, we need a sec. We need a moment. We need to take a beat. We need to probably reevaluate our case, maybe talk to the jurors and figure out if this case is worth re trying. Obviously they have the option of trying to negotiate with the defense and coming up with some sort of plea deal that everyone can be okay with. But look, this is going to be a tall task. This is a huge undertaking for them to retry this case. It's taxpayer dollars at stake, and the district attorney is well aware of that.
00:16:40
Speaker 2: Can you get a conviction? You're going to go through this if you don't think you can get a conviction. He's talking about the... He's still... He's talking like a man who wants to retry because he's talking about getting justice for the victims, those three little ones, right?
00:16:53
Speaker 3: So.
00:16:55
Speaker 2: I don't know how they make this balance and maybe he's not ready right now. But how can you, what is just, if you fought this hard to bring somebody to justice, how could you take anything less, baby?
00:17:10
Speaker 1: Yeah.
00:17:10
Speaker 3: I mean, they say, he just reiterated, our job is to seek justice for those three babies who were murdered. And they're acknowledging there are strong feelings. They are acknowledging there are differing opinions. It's interesting, after everything we watched in this trial for six weeks, and then these long deliberations, I thought it was of note. All of the reporters in that room, when the mistrial was declared- they described the scene as no emotion. They said neither the jury nor the Clancy family nor Lindsay Clancy herself showed any emotion as the judge announced the mistrial. It's almost as if they knew this was coming and it was, everyone felt defeated. Like no one felt like this was a win in any way, shape or form.
00:18:01
Speaker 2: Hey, I'm surprised Rob. He's, he's, he's carrying the same torch that his, uh, his, uh, prosecutors were. Um, He said this is not about women's health. This is not about our health care system. This is not about anything other than the cruel and calculated killings of three innocents by Lindsay Glancy. How can you not prosecute her then? How can you not try her again, Robes? If he's sticking, he's coming out and restating their case. This is not about mental health and women. This is about one woman who did this.
00:18:34
Speaker 3: And so if you take him at his word right now, even though he says they're going to take some time to assess whether or not to bring charges again, it does sound like he is right now leaning towards continuing on and pursuing a second trial. And that is all going to be meted out on September 29th. They have some time. They have a couple weeks to get their ducks in a row and really take a look at the evidence, really take a look at the reaction by the jury, and certainly maybe even... Take the temperature of people in Massachusetts. What do they want? How are they feeling?
00:19:08
Speaker 1: He represents the people.
00:19:08
Speaker 2: Well, that's funny you just said that. He said we're not making a decision based on the sentiments of the public.
00:19:12
Speaker 3: That's funny.
00:19:12
Speaker 1: That's funny.
00:19:13
Speaker 3: That is funny because I was thinking maybe he would. This is an elected office. So, yes, it does matter what people think about the job you've done, the cases you've chosen to pursue, and how you've chosen to litigate them.
00:19:25
Speaker 2: This is something, a question we had. He just pointed out in his statement that the two prosecutors, the ladies, are mothers themselves.
00:19:32
Speaker 1: And I wondered about that.
00:19:33
Speaker 3: I wondered if they were. I wondered if they were. And they are standing next to him, stone-faced. And look, I don't know. This isn't a win for anybody. And it's hard to even argue in a case like this that anybody would win. And I think Kevin Reddington pointed that out the other day. by saying there are no winners. This is a tragedy, period. No question about it. But at issue, who is to blame? Does the medical folks who were supposed to take care of Lindsay, do they bear culpability? Is it all on Lindsay? Who is to blame for the deaths of these three young children beyond Lindsay Clancy? Or is it just her? And that is the question that it looks like we will have another jury set to decide here sooner rather than later. So we'll continue to keep our eye. Any new developments, of course, we'll hop on and let you know. Thanks for sticking with us throughout all of this. We appreciate you. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ Holmes. We'll talk soon.