Sept. 2, 2026
!!UPDATE!! Killer Mom Trial Verdict Watch: Drama Before Day 5 Deliberations Even Begin!
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed The Judge in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial began the morning with a veiled, yet stern announcement, reminding everyone in the courtroom the statutes governing conduct within the proceedings. Without getting specific, it appears the judge was referring to the arrest of a woman photographing jurors outside the courthouse yesterday. Reporters in the courtroom then witnessed the judge asking each juror a question one by one with attorneys from both sides present, before dismissing them to begin their deliberations.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Wednesday, September 2nd, and drama in the courtroom before deliberations on day five.
00:00:09
Speaker 1: And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
00:00:12
Speaker 2: I just wanted to hop on and give you this quick update. We didn't expect to give you this quick update because Robes is supposed to be uneventful. Welcome to the courtroom. Good morning, jurors. Go back, continue deliberations. Not quite this morning. We knew something was up as soon as the judge came in.
00:00:25
Speaker 3: That's right.
00:00:25
Speaker 4: He usually goes straight to business, but this time... he said he wanted to make a comment without bringing any editorial to it. And what he basically did, I think you have closer to his exact wording, but he basically issued a reminder to everyone there in the court, including the attorneys, the jurors, and he said just about everyone, that there are statutes in Massachusetts laws that govern the conduct surrounding the trial.
00:00:55
Speaker 3: You have more closely what his wording was?
00:00:57
Speaker 2: The way he said it, maybe he was even nervous how he was saying it, but what you said is closer to what I think he was meaning. I just want to remind everybody here and elsewhere that there's been an order that's been issued in regards to the conducting of this case. as well as statutes in this commonwealth which relate to jurors, witnesses, attorneys, and others with regards to this proceeding.
00:01:23
Speaker 1: That's how he put it.
00:01:24
Speaker 3: Sounds like a word salad to me.
00:01:25
Speaker 2: Everybody should be well aware that that order... And that statute is being enforced and will be enforced. Okay, if you know what he's talking about, maybe you know what he's talking about. But for the rest of us, we kind of are trying to.
00:01:39
Speaker 1: Piece it together.
00:01:39
Speaker 4: Most people, I say most people, some of the reporters in the courtroom, and there's one, we love this local reporter out of Boston 25, but he is linking this to the woman who was arrested yesterday outside of the courthouse as jurors were leaving around 3.40 for juror intimidation. And she actually has an arraignment hearing at that same courthouse, and it could be happening right now. We don't have the exact timing, but her name is Dawn Light, 56 years old, local Massachusetts woman who was reportedly filming or photographing jurors as they walked out of the courthouse yesterday.
00:02:16
Speaker 1: That's a pretty big no-no.
00:02:17
Speaker 4: Huge no-no.
00:02:17
Speaker 2: That is direct jury intimidation. So that is not going to be tolerated. So, Rose, that This all pieces together. So we hear him make these comments and we raise a few eyebrows and we cover the story of the woman arrested this morning. So, yeah, we assume maybe this is what's up. But then he he's makes this comment. Then he calls the attorneys over for a sidebar, which goes for a little while. Now, we watching the live stream robes don't know. They cut the audio on the feed during a sidebar. But the folks in the courtroom can see what's going on, and there was a lot apparently going on.
00:02:55
Speaker 4: Apparently, yes, because that same reporter who is in the courtroom said they are polling all of the Lindsay Clancy.
00:03:04
Speaker 3: Jurors at that sidebar.
00:03:06
Speaker 4: So, yes, the live feed that all of us can see who aren't in the courtroom is just zeroed or zoomed in on the emblem of the courthouse. And we see nothing and we hear nothing. But then we're being told by the reporters there that each of the jurors, one by one, are being sworn in. So they're taking an oath in front of the judge and in front of the prosecuting attorneys and Lindsey Clancy's defense attorney, Kevin Reddington.
00:03:31
Speaker 3: And they have been asked. They didn't know. They couldn't hear what question.
00:03:35
Speaker 4: But it seemed as though each juror was asked one question and they answer, and then they walk out. And so this goes on for all 12 jurors. And then they even added, they brought in the four alternate jurors who also were then polled one by one. And I imagine, look, this woman who was taking photos or filming jurors, if all the jurors walked out, she probably doesn't even know who the alternates are and who the actual jurors are.
00:04:02
Speaker 3: And I actually have a question.
00:04:04
Speaker 4: Are the alternate jurors, I imagine they have to sit in on the deliberations, correct? Yes.
00:04:10
Speaker 3: Do they get to add?
00:04:11
Speaker 1: Sweetheart.
00:04:12
Speaker 2: Now, I don't know if it's different in Massachusetts, but I know this has happened elsewhere. They have to start deliberations over.
00:04:19
Speaker 4: Wow. So they're kept in a separate room in case they're needed, twiddling their thumbs while the 12 jurors are going back and forth trying to come to a consensus. Those four who are alternates are ready to step in and start over, but they don't get to know what's going on in the deliberation room.
00:04:36
Speaker 1: And when you think about it, it has to be that way.
00:04:38
Speaker 3: That makes sense.
00:04:39
Speaker 2: They'd be influenced, yeah. Oh, my God. Just you saying that, you made my skin crawl. I didn't think about all the outcomes. I didn't think about that one.
00:04:48
Speaker 1: Yes, they would.
00:04:49
Speaker 2: So this mess of, and we don't know what this could have been, just some excited woman, happy to be a part of some big story and taking pictures. Or she could have been trying to use that person's picture, identify them in case the Verdict doesn't go the way she thinks it should.
00:05:04
Speaker 1: Who knows? But you can't mess around with this stuff.
00:05:06
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, the reporting from the Boston Herald was that this woman, again, her name is, I can't get over her name, Dawn Light. Were her parents just comedians or did she change her name? Just find that interesting.
00:05:19
Speaker 3: But anyway, Dawn Light.
00:05:21
Speaker 1: We knew she was going to be something someday. Right.
00:05:24
Speaker 4: Her name was going to be in the headlines in some way, shape, or form. But she was reportedly chasing down and photographing jurors as they were dismissed for the day. That was the language used for those who saw it happen. And again, she is scheduled to face a judge at any moment. Could be happening right now in that same courthouse. And she's facing right now just it looked like one charge of juror intimidation.
00:05:53
Speaker 3: But that's serious.
00:05:54
Speaker 4: And look, I don't think you have to be some legal expert or have some intimate knowledge about how our court system works to know that a jury's or a juror's identification is secret for obvious reasons, and especially in the middle of deliberations. can't identify a juror, take a photo of a juror. Just look at how the pool camera operates. They are directly out of the line of sight of the jury.
00:06:21
Speaker 3: You cannot.
00:06:22
Speaker 1: Doesn't even get close. They don't even get up to the edge a little bit.
00:06:25
Speaker 4: Nothing. No.
00:06:25
Speaker 3: So I don't think.
00:06:26
Speaker 4: I can't imagine this woman didn't know exactly what she was doing when she was taking photos of the jurors.
00:06:33
Speaker 1: But jeez, but Rose, how.
00:06:36
Speaker 2: When he walked in, and I don't know, we don't You know, we're watching it like everybody else. We're casual observers, but we have seen these folks, these characters every day for six weeks now, Robes. We have looked at this judge. We have seen some of the mannerisms. We see stuff. When he walked in, I said, he looks a little annoyed this morning, and he was carrying a big, a lot of stuff, and then kind of threw it down.
00:06:58
Speaker 1: I said, hmm, I wonder what's up.
00:07:00
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
00:07:00
Speaker 4: And I wonder, look, he's frustrated because, look, we're already dealing with the potential of a mistrial hanging over his head, which he doesn't want, which nobody wants. So he's already probably feeling tension because we're in day five of deliberations and he knows he's going to probably have to ask or push this jury to go back to deliberating if they come back once again and say they're deadlocked today. Now you add a woman who's taking pictures of jurors as they come out Creating more stress on this jury, creating more pressure on this jury, and it could.
00:07:35
Speaker 3: Add to the pressure to push for a mistrial.
00:07:38
Speaker 4: Could this be brought up again if there is an appeal that somehow the jury was intimidated or pressured to come to a decision that they weren't ready to come to? This puts a potential wrinkle in.
00:07:51
Speaker 3: The entire process. And he's probably pretty pissed off about it.
00:07:55
Speaker 2: At this point, I mean, it's already under threat.
00:07:59
Speaker 1: Nobody wants to do this again.
00:08:01
Speaker 2: Kevin Reddington, the comment he gave to reporters that Clancy can't, Lindsay Clancy can't go through this again.
00:08:07
Speaker 1: No. She can't do another trial.
00:08:09
Speaker 2: So, Robes, he saw this morning, like, this is one of those things, and Robes, I say it all the time. I'm like, let me screw my life up myself. Don't do it for me.
00:08:22
Speaker 4: Right?
00:08:22
Speaker 1: It's one thing. He is looking at this, and this is what I thought about.
00:08:25
Speaker 2: Like, we've done all we can in here, and everything I can as a judge, and I got some idiot on the outside is putting all of our work at risk. Right.
00:08:35
Speaker 3: Because it's not... You know what?
00:08:36
Speaker 4: I was thinking, like, it's not even just the pressure or just the idea that this woman is intimidating jurors to make the right decision or to make a decision, but also I would imagine they worry about their personal safety.
00:08:50
Speaker 3: These are regular.
00:08:52
Speaker 4: you know, Janes and Joes who aren't used to the spotlight, who aren't used to being anyone somebody's trying to take a picture of, let alone intimidate.
00:09:01
Speaker 3: That's scary. You think about the safety of you, your family.
00:09:05
Speaker 4: You worry about your name, your address being leaked out if someone doesn't like the decision you made or they don't like that you couldn't come to a decision. All of that has got to be very frightening and scary to these men and women.
00:09:17
Speaker 1: Babe, it's heated.
00:09:19
Speaker 2: It is heated, and we've seen how heated political debate and discourse, dialogue in public can lead to worse things, Rose. And yes, death in our public discourse these days. So maybe they get this resolved. I'm very curious to see what happens to her in court or how much she has to say or how much we find out about her motivations.
00:09:45
Speaker 1: In court today. But stay here, folks. They weren't done.
00:09:50
Speaker 2: After all this was happening in the sidebar, we'll tell you what the judge then said to this jury and what we are expecting today.
00:10:06
Speaker 3: Welcome back to Amy and TJ.
00:10:08
Speaker 4: Yes, a little drama before the deliberations on day five of deliberations. It's day 26 today. of the Lindsay Clancy trial. We are about to wrap up a full six weeks if this continues. And these jurors have been listening to intense, gruesome, unthinkable, heartbreaking, emotional testimony from the beginning. This has been unrelenting. And now as they're trying to determine whether or not Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible, whether or not she was in a state of psychosis, or if she was very clear-headed when she made a decision to strangle her three young children, now they're worried about their own personal safety. They're worried about the public pressure that's out there, or at least they could be or should be, and the judge was worried about that today when he pulled.
00:11:01
Speaker 3: Them one by one.
00:11:02
Speaker 4: But the main order, the main business of the day is, yes, the judge instructing this jury to go back and try to come to some consensus.
00:11:12
Speaker 1: Yeah.
00:11:13
Speaker 2: And you can tell them one more time, right? Sternly, go back in there, try it again, right? Massachusetts law allows for that.
00:11:21
Speaker 1: Do they know that? Does he tell them that?
00:11:24
Speaker 3: I didn't know that until this case.
00:11:25
Speaker 1: They probably don't know.
00:11:26
Speaker 4: I don't know that unless a juror, and look, again, we have to assume and perhaps even hope That none of these jurors are going home and Googling the case and how long should we deliberate? How long does a jury deliberate? I mean, you could see I might be tempted to do that.
00:11:42
Speaker 3: Like, how long before the judge lets us, you know, leave?
00:11:46
Speaker 4: How long before a judge declares a hung jury?
00:11:50
Speaker 1: We connect.
00:11:51
Speaker 2: We actually talked about this yesterday, what we'd actually do. We both said, oh, my God, just in passing in conversation every day, we'd say, yeah, oh, of course they're going home and da-da-da. But then once we talked it out, yeah, we probably wouldn't.
00:12:05
Speaker 4: I don't think I would look up facts of the case, and I think I would be concerned about looking up what public sentiment was, but I would absolutely probably be telling you what was happening inside the jury deliberations room, and I probably would ask you not to tell me what other people are saying.
00:12:23
Speaker 3: However, if it got to this point where.
00:12:25
Speaker 4: We've been deliberating for 23-plus hours, I might start Googling, what's the longest a jury has deliberated? At what point can a judge... tell a jury they have to keep deliberating. I might be curious about the law, and I guess they're not even supposed to look that up.
00:12:41
Speaker 1: Oh, they can't do that either?
00:12:42
Speaker 3: I don't know.
00:12:43
Speaker 2: If it would affect your ability to serve in this case, and that could because it might have, yes, that would count.
00:12:48
Speaker 3: But I would have questions about that. At a certain point, you're like, my God, how long is this going to go on?
00:12:53
Speaker 1: How long do.
00:12:53
Speaker 3: We have to keep deliberating for? But look, yes, he can go back twice.
00:12:57
Speaker 4: The only caveat is if the jury comes back with a question, He can send them back then and have them continue to figure out if he answers that question.
00:13:05
Speaker 3: It doesn't count.
00:13:06
Speaker 1: It's one of the times.
00:13:07
Speaker 3: And look, we've been waiting.
00:13:08
Speaker 4: Like, I am genuinely surprised they don't have a question. I am genuinely surprised they don't have some sort of need for a clarification on something a witness said, something a doctor said.
00:13:21
Speaker 3: Something someone testified to.
00:13:23
Speaker 1: Not one.
00:13:24
Speaker 3: That's actually really shocking.
00:13:27
Speaker 1: Not one question for clarity have they asked for.
00:13:30
Speaker 4: Nothing.
00:13:31
Speaker 1: They asked to see a couple of items. Can you bring in the knife and what was the other thing? The pill bottles.
00:13:35
Speaker 3: The empty bag of pill bottles.
00:13:37
Speaker 1: That was it.
00:13:38
Speaker 3: The bag full of empty pill bottles. And that was it. They didn't have a question attached to it.
00:13:43
Speaker 4: They just wanted to see that evidence. And how that plays into their stalemate is beyond anyone's actual knowledge because we don't have a clue because they haven't asked a question.
00:13:55
Speaker 2: I was, as you were reading here, and they've gotten going officially about 9.30 to Eastern time. They went back in to start deliberations again. So I'm looking even at the Court TV official deliberations clock ropes. They have 23 hours and 25 minutes so far this morning. That's the official count this morning, I should say. We got to hear something from them today. We will, of course. They're not going to go quiet for another day.
00:14:20
Speaker 4: I can imagine we won't either get a question from the jury today. Or another request to stop deliberations because they can't reach a consensus or a verdict.
00:14:33
Speaker 3: And that has happened.
00:14:34
Speaker 4: We have seen it happen even in day six recently in some high profile murder cases, even in the state of Massachusetts.
00:14:41
Speaker 3: So it's possible. And we heard from Kevin Reddington saying that he is hopeful.
00:14:46
Speaker 4: So look, we could we could get a verdict today or at least some.
00:14:51
Speaker 3: Sort of clue as to where this thing is headed.
00:14:55
Speaker 1: Okay, I'm sorry. You might have seen me grinning a couple times. I did see you grinning. Because you were talking about Dawn Light, the woman that's being arraigned.
00:15:01
Speaker 4: Correct.
00:15:01
Speaker 1: And you're not the only one who noticed the name. Yeah. And there are other people making comments.
00:15:05
Speaker 3: What are some of the best ones?
00:15:06
Speaker 2: Well, just some thought. We were just in some kind of a weird simulation. Like, what is happening? Is that really her name?
00:15:13
Speaker 3: I actually questioned it, too.
00:15:14
Speaker 4: And I want to know if that's the name she was born with or if that's the name she chose. Yes.
00:15:19
Speaker 3: Either could be true.
00:15:20
Speaker 1: Okay. I don't know if, given the debate, I don't know if this is appropriate. You tell me. Dawn Light is probably hormonal. Let her go. That's inappropriate, isn't it?
00:15:32
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:15:32
Speaker 3: It's inappropriate given the whole.
00:15:36
Speaker 1: Postpartum psychosis.
00:15:39
Speaker 4: You never want to point to a woman's hormones ever, ever, ever, ever for anything. Except for when it's actually going to potentially provide a not guilty verdict here.
00:15:48
Speaker 3: As is the case in the Lindsay Clancy trial.
00:15:51
Speaker 2: Folks, we're keeping an eye on it. Keep an eye on the feed today. We weren't expecting to do this episode because this was supposed to be an uneventful ceremonial go back and deliberate, but it turns into something.
00:16:00
Speaker 1: So we appreciate you as always sticking with us. I'm TJ on behalf of my dear Amy Robach. We'll talk to you all soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Wednesday, September 2nd, and drama in the courtroom before deliberations on day five.
00:00:09
Speaker 1: And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
00:00:12
Speaker 2: I just wanted to hop on and give you this quick update. We didn't expect to give you this quick update because Robes is supposed to be uneventful. Welcome to the courtroom. Good morning, jurors. Go back, continue deliberations. Not quite this morning. We knew something was up as soon as the judge came in.
00:00:25
Speaker 3: That's right.
00:00:25
Speaker 4: He usually goes straight to business, but this time... he said he wanted to make a comment without bringing any editorial to it. And what he basically did, I think you have closer to his exact wording, but he basically issued a reminder to everyone there in the court, including the attorneys, the jurors, and he said just about everyone, that there are statutes in Massachusetts laws that govern the conduct surrounding the trial.
00:00:55
Speaker 3: You have more closely what his wording was?
00:00:57
Speaker 2: The way he said it, maybe he was even nervous how he was saying it, but what you said is closer to what I think he was meaning. I just want to remind everybody here and elsewhere that there's been an order that's been issued in regards to the conducting of this case. as well as statutes in this commonwealth which relate to jurors, witnesses, attorneys, and others with regards to this proceeding.
00:01:23
Speaker 1: That's how he put it.
00:01:24
Speaker 3: Sounds like a word salad to me.
00:01:25
Speaker 2: Everybody should be well aware that that order... And that statute is being enforced and will be enforced. Okay, if you know what he's talking about, maybe you know what he's talking about. But for the rest of us, we kind of are trying to.
00:01:39
Speaker 1: Piece it together.
00:01:39
Speaker 4: Most people, I say most people, some of the reporters in the courtroom, and there's one, we love this local reporter out of Boston 25, but he is linking this to the woman who was arrested yesterday outside of the courthouse as jurors were leaving around 3.40 for juror intimidation. And she actually has an arraignment hearing at that same courthouse, and it could be happening right now. We don't have the exact timing, but her name is Dawn Light, 56 years old, local Massachusetts woman who was reportedly filming or photographing jurors as they walked out of the courthouse yesterday.
00:02:16
Speaker 1: That's a pretty big no-no.
00:02:17
Speaker 4: Huge no-no.
00:02:17
Speaker 2: That is direct jury intimidation. So that is not going to be tolerated. So, Rose, that This all pieces together. So we hear him make these comments and we raise a few eyebrows and we cover the story of the woman arrested this morning. So, yeah, we assume maybe this is what's up. But then he he's makes this comment. Then he calls the attorneys over for a sidebar, which goes for a little while. Now, we watching the live stream robes don't know. They cut the audio on the feed during a sidebar. But the folks in the courtroom can see what's going on, and there was a lot apparently going on.
00:02:55
Speaker 4: Apparently, yes, because that same reporter who is in the courtroom said they are polling all of the Lindsay Clancy.
00:03:04
Speaker 3: Jurors at that sidebar.
00:03:06
Speaker 4: So, yes, the live feed that all of us can see who aren't in the courtroom is just zeroed or zoomed in on the emblem of the courthouse. And we see nothing and we hear nothing. But then we're being told by the reporters there that each of the jurors, one by one, are being sworn in. So they're taking an oath in front of the judge and in front of the prosecuting attorneys and Lindsey Clancy's defense attorney, Kevin Reddington.
00:03:31
Speaker 3: And they have been asked. They didn't know. They couldn't hear what question.
00:03:35
Speaker 4: But it seemed as though each juror was asked one question and they answer, and then they walk out. And so this goes on for all 12 jurors. And then they even added, they brought in the four alternate jurors who also were then polled one by one. And I imagine, look, this woman who was taking photos or filming jurors, if all the jurors walked out, she probably doesn't even know who the alternates are and who the actual jurors are.
00:04:02
Speaker 3: And I actually have a question.
00:04:04
Speaker 4: Are the alternate jurors, I imagine they have to sit in on the deliberations, correct? Yes.
00:04:10
Speaker 3: Do they get to add?
00:04:11
Speaker 1: Sweetheart.
00:04:12
Speaker 2: Now, I don't know if it's different in Massachusetts, but I know this has happened elsewhere. They have to start deliberations over.
00:04:19
Speaker 4: Wow. So they're kept in a separate room in case they're needed, twiddling their thumbs while the 12 jurors are going back and forth trying to come to a consensus. Those four who are alternates are ready to step in and start over, but they don't get to know what's going on in the deliberation room.
00:04:36
Speaker 1: And when you think about it, it has to be that way.
00:04:38
Speaker 3: That makes sense.
00:04:39
Speaker 2: They'd be influenced, yeah. Oh, my God. Just you saying that, you made my skin crawl. I didn't think about all the outcomes. I didn't think about that one.
00:04:48
Speaker 1: Yes, they would.
00:04:49
Speaker 2: So this mess of, and we don't know what this could have been, just some excited woman, happy to be a part of some big story and taking pictures. Or she could have been trying to use that person's picture, identify them in case the Verdict doesn't go the way she thinks it should.
00:05:04
Speaker 1: Who knows? But you can't mess around with this stuff.
00:05:06
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, the reporting from the Boston Herald was that this woman, again, her name is, I can't get over her name, Dawn Light. Were her parents just comedians or did she change her name? Just find that interesting.
00:05:19
Speaker 3: But anyway, Dawn Light.
00:05:21
Speaker 1: We knew she was going to be something someday. Right.
00:05:24
Speaker 4: Her name was going to be in the headlines in some way, shape, or form. But she was reportedly chasing down and photographing jurors as they were dismissed for the day. That was the language used for those who saw it happen. And again, she is scheduled to face a judge at any moment. Could be happening right now in that same courthouse. And she's facing right now just it looked like one charge of juror intimidation.
00:05:53
Speaker 3: But that's serious.
00:05:54
Speaker 4: And look, I don't think you have to be some legal expert or have some intimate knowledge about how our court system works to know that a jury's or a juror's identification is secret for obvious reasons, and especially in the middle of deliberations. can't identify a juror, take a photo of a juror. Just look at how the pool camera operates. They are directly out of the line of sight of the jury.
00:06:21
Speaker 3: You cannot.
00:06:22
Speaker 1: Doesn't even get close. They don't even get up to the edge a little bit.
00:06:25
Speaker 4: Nothing. No.
00:06:25
Speaker 3: So I don't think.
00:06:26
Speaker 4: I can't imagine this woman didn't know exactly what she was doing when she was taking photos of the jurors.
00:06:33
Speaker 1: But jeez, but Rose, how.
00:06:36
Speaker 2: When he walked in, and I don't know, we don't You know, we're watching it like everybody else. We're casual observers, but we have seen these folks, these characters every day for six weeks now, Robes. We have looked at this judge. We have seen some of the mannerisms. We see stuff. When he walked in, I said, he looks a little annoyed this morning, and he was carrying a big, a lot of stuff, and then kind of threw it down.
00:06:58
Speaker 1: I said, hmm, I wonder what's up.
00:07:00
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
00:07:00
Speaker 4: And I wonder, look, he's frustrated because, look, we're already dealing with the potential of a mistrial hanging over his head, which he doesn't want, which nobody wants. So he's already probably feeling tension because we're in day five of deliberations and he knows he's going to probably have to ask or push this jury to go back to deliberating if they come back once again and say they're deadlocked today. Now you add a woman who's taking pictures of jurors as they come out Creating more stress on this jury, creating more pressure on this jury, and it could.
00:07:35
Speaker 3: Add to the pressure to push for a mistrial.
00:07:38
Speaker 4: Could this be brought up again if there is an appeal that somehow the jury was intimidated or pressured to come to a decision that they weren't ready to come to? This puts a potential wrinkle in.
00:07:51
Speaker 3: The entire process. And he's probably pretty pissed off about it.
00:07:55
Speaker 2: At this point, I mean, it's already under threat.
00:07:59
Speaker 1: Nobody wants to do this again.
00:08:01
Speaker 2: Kevin Reddington, the comment he gave to reporters that Clancy can't, Lindsay Clancy can't go through this again.
00:08:07
Speaker 1: No. She can't do another trial.
00:08:09
Speaker 2: So, Robes, he saw this morning, like, this is one of those things, and Robes, I say it all the time. I'm like, let me screw my life up myself. Don't do it for me.
00:08:22
Speaker 4: Right?
00:08:22
Speaker 1: It's one thing. He is looking at this, and this is what I thought about.
00:08:25
Speaker 2: Like, we've done all we can in here, and everything I can as a judge, and I got some idiot on the outside is putting all of our work at risk. Right.
00:08:35
Speaker 3: Because it's not... You know what?
00:08:36
Speaker 4: I was thinking, like, it's not even just the pressure or just the idea that this woman is intimidating jurors to make the right decision or to make a decision, but also I would imagine they worry about their personal safety.
00:08:50
Speaker 3: These are regular.
00:08:52
Speaker 4: you know, Janes and Joes who aren't used to the spotlight, who aren't used to being anyone somebody's trying to take a picture of, let alone intimidate.
00:09:01
Speaker 3: That's scary. You think about the safety of you, your family.
00:09:05
Speaker 4: You worry about your name, your address being leaked out if someone doesn't like the decision you made or they don't like that you couldn't come to a decision. All of that has got to be very frightening and scary to these men and women.
00:09:17
Speaker 1: Babe, it's heated.
00:09:19
Speaker 2: It is heated, and we've seen how heated political debate and discourse, dialogue in public can lead to worse things, Rose. And yes, death in our public discourse these days. So maybe they get this resolved. I'm very curious to see what happens to her in court or how much she has to say or how much we find out about her motivations.
00:09:45
Speaker 1: In court today. But stay here, folks. They weren't done.
00:09:50
Speaker 2: After all this was happening in the sidebar, we'll tell you what the judge then said to this jury and what we are expecting today.
00:10:06
Speaker 3: Welcome back to Amy and TJ.
00:10:08
Speaker 4: Yes, a little drama before the deliberations on day five of deliberations. It's day 26 today. of the Lindsay Clancy trial. We are about to wrap up a full six weeks if this continues. And these jurors have been listening to intense, gruesome, unthinkable, heartbreaking, emotional testimony from the beginning. This has been unrelenting. And now as they're trying to determine whether or not Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible, whether or not she was in a state of psychosis, or if she was very clear-headed when she made a decision to strangle her three young children, now they're worried about their own personal safety. They're worried about the public pressure that's out there, or at least they could be or should be, and the judge was worried about that today when he pulled.
00:11:01
Speaker 3: Them one by one.
00:11:02
Speaker 4: But the main order, the main business of the day is, yes, the judge instructing this jury to go back and try to come to some consensus.
00:11:12
Speaker 1: Yeah.
00:11:13
Speaker 2: And you can tell them one more time, right? Sternly, go back in there, try it again, right? Massachusetts law allows for that.
00:11:21
Speaker 1: Do they know that? Does he tell them that?
00:11:24
Speaker 3: I didn't know that until this case.
00:11:25
Speaker 1: They probably don't know.
00:11:26
Speaker 4: I don't know that unless a juror, and look, again, we have to assume and perhaps even hope That none of these jurors are going home and Googling the case and how long should we deliberate? How long does a jury deliberate? I mean, you could see I might be tempted to do that.
00:11:42
Speaker 3: Like, how long before the judge lets us, you know, leave?
00:11:46
Speaker 4: How long before a judge declares a hung jury?
00:11:50
Speaker 1: We connect.
00:11:51
Speaker 2: We actually talked about this yesterday, what we'd actually do. We both said, oh, my God, just in passing in conversation every day, we'd say, yeah, oh, of course they're going home and da-da-da. But then once we talked it out, yeah, we probably wouldn't.
00:12:05
Speaker 4: I don't think I would look up facts of the case, and I think I would be concerned about looking up what public sentiment was, but I would absolutely probably be telling you what was happening inside the jury deliberations room, and I probably would ask you not to tell me what other people are saying.
00:12:23
Speaker 3: However, if it got to this point where.
00:12:25
Speaker 4: We've been deliberating for 23-plus hours, I might start Googling, what's the longest a jury has deliberated? At what point can a judge... tell a jury they have to keep deliberating. I might be curious about the law, and I guess they're not even supposed to look that up.
00:12:41
Speaker 1: Oh, they can't do that either?
00:12:42
Speaker 3: I don't know.
00:12:43
Speaker 2: If it would affect your ability to serve in this case, and that could because it might have, yes, that would count.
00:12:48
Speaker 3: But I would have questions about that. At a certain point, you're like, my God, how long is this going to go on?
00:12:53
Speaker 1: How long do.
00:12:53
Speaker 3: We have to keep deliberating for? But look, yes, he can go back twice.
00:12:57
Speaker 4: The only caveat is if the jury comes back with a question, He can send them back then and have them continue to figure out if he answers that question.
00:13:05
Speaker 3: It doesn't count.
00:13:06
Speaker 1: It's one of the times.
00:13:07
Speaker 3: And look, we've been waiting.
00:13:08
Speaker 4: Like, I am genuinely surprised they don't have a question. I am genuinely surprised they don't have some sort of need for a clarification on something a witness said, something a doctor said.
00:13:21
Speaker 3: Something someone testified to.
00:13:23
Speaker 1: Not one.
00:13:24
Speaker 3: That's actually really shocking.
00:13:27
Speaker 1: Not one question for clarity have they asked for.
00:13:30
Speaker 4: Nothing.
00:13:31
Speaker 1: They asked to see a couple of items. Can you bring in the knife and what was the other thing? The pill bottles.
00:13:35
Speaker 3: The empty bag of pill bottles.
00:13:37
Speaker 1: That was it.
00:13:38
Speaker 3: The bag full of empty pill bottles. And that was it. They didn't have a question attached to it.
00:13:43
Speaker 4: They just wanted to see that evidence. And how that plays into their stalemate is beyond anyone's actual knowledge because we don't have a clue because they haven't asked a question.
00:13:55
Speaker 2: I was, as you were reading here, and they've gotten going officially about 9.30 to Eastern time. They went back in to start deliberations again. So I'm looking even at the Court TV official deliberations clock ropes. They have 23 hours and 25 minutes so far this morning. That's the official count this morning, I should say. We got to hear something from them today. We will, of course. They're not going to go quiet for another day.
00:14:20
Speaker 4: I can imagine we won't either get a question from the jury today. Or another request to stop deliberations because they can't reach a consensus or a verdict.
00:14:33
Speaker 3: And that has happened.
00:14:34
Speaker 4: We have seen it happen even in day six recently in some high profile murder cases, even in the state of Massachusetts.
00:14:41
Speaker 3: So it's possible. And we heard from Kevin Reddington saying that he is hopeful.
00:14:46
Speaker 4: So look, we could we could get a verdict today or at least some.
00:14:51
Speaker 3: Sort of clue as to where this thing is headed.
00:14:55
Speaker 1: Okay, I'm sorry. You might have seen me grinning a couple times. I did see you grinning. Because you were talking about Dawn Light, the woman that's being arraigned.
00:15:01
Speaker 4: Correct.
00:15:01
Speaker 1: And you're not the only one who noticed the name. Yeah. And there are other people making comments.
00:15:05
Speaker 3: What are some of the best ones?
00:15:06
Speaker 2: Well, just some thought. We were just in some kind of a weird simulation. Like, what is happening? Is that really her name?
00:15:13
Speaker 3: I actually questioned it, too.
00:15:14
Speaker 4: And I want to know if that's the name she was born with or if that's the name she chose. Yes.
00:15:19
Speaker 3: Either could be true.
00:15:20
Speaker 1: Okay. I don't know if, given the debate, I don't know if this is appropriate. You tell me. Dawn Light is probably hormonal. Let her go. That's inappropriate, isn't it?
00:15:32
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:15:32
Speaker 3: It's inappropriate given the whole.
00:15:36
Speaker 1: Postpartum psychosis.
00:15:39
Speaker 4: You never want to point to a woman's hormones ever, ever, ever, ever for anything. Except for when it's actually going to potentially provide a not guilty verdict here.
00:15:48
Speaker 3: As is the case in the Lindsay Clancy trial.
00:15:51
Speaker 2: Folks, we're keeping an eye on it. Keep an eye on the feed today. We weren't expecting to do this episode because this was supposed to be an uneventful ceremonial go back and deliberate, but it turns into something.
00:16:00
Speaker 1: So we appreciate you as always sticking with us. I'm TJ on behalf of my dear Amy Robach. We'll talk to you all soon.