Sept. 1, 2026
!!UPDATE!! Killer Mom Trial VERDICT WATCH: Jury Heads Home Without A Verdict, Remains Deadlocked After 22 Hours
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed There will be a fifth day of deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial, after the jury asked to go home early once again today. This, after the judge sent the deadlocked jurors back to deliberate, late this morning. In the state of Massachusetts, the judge can only send the jury back twice without their consent, but may ultimately issue what’s called the “Tuey Rodriguez” charge, encouraging jurors to reevaluate their decision and consider where the other jurors are, while staying true to their personal convictions.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Tuesday, September 1st. We will have a day five of jury deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. With that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Just moments ago, before we hopped on this microphone, the judge came in robes. Jury's going home early again today after what was. A fairly, if you can call a very quiet day, eventful. We were on the edge of our seats.
00:00:30
Speaker 2: Yes, the entire day waiting for the jury to come back with something after they came back pretty early on, within, what, an hour or so of going back this morning on Tuesday, saying, hey, judge, we're deadlocked. The judge sent them back and we're waiting, waiting, waiting. They went to lunch thinking, okay, when they come back, we're going to hear something. Yeah, we just heard something. They want to come back tomorrow and try again.
00:00:57
Speaker 1: Didn't see this coming. I would have guessed a mistrial or we would hear from them again or something. I did not think we'd get to the end of the day. And they'll say they voluntarily said, let us go home for the night. Folks, this just happened. So they usually been going home during the whole trial. They've been going from nine to four. Is this two days now in their deliberations? This jury has asked to go home early. What is that supposed to mean?
00:01:24
Speaker 2: It means they're mentally exhausted.
00:01:26
Speaker 1: They're exhausted.
00:01:26
Speaker 2: They're exhausted. It means they're not getting anywhere. It means they're deadlocked. I mean, think about any time you're having a disagreement or an argument with someone and you can't find common ground or you can't come to a conclusion. Just how mentally that just drains you.
00:01:42
Speaker 1: Can we talk about this in the morning? Can we please talk about this in the morning?
00:01:45
Speaker 2: And I think that's what the jury is basically saying. We need to go home, regroup, get a good night's sleep, and start fresh again in the morning. And look, this is significant because we heard the judge today send the jury back to continue their deliberations. And that is significant because in the state of Massachusetts... a judge can only send a deadlocked jury back to deliberate twice. You can't send a jury back more than twice. Without their consent. Correct, without their consent. That's true. That is a very important caveat. But the point being is he's already sent them back once, so he can send them back again. And I guess you're right. He could send them back a third time if they agreed to go back and try again.
00:02:29
Speaker 1: If he sends them back a second time, they know. Well, I don't know if they know Massachusetts law or not, but they know we're in control now. We can get out of here anytime we want because this dude cannot do this to us again. Robes, I right now give them credit. I did not anticipate this day going fully. This jury has now been doing this for 23 hours over four days. They have been deliberating for 23 hours. Robes, but they came out. This morning and said, we can't do it. Rose, they went into a room at 10.15 after telling the judge we're deadlocked. And they sat in there together for another five hours to try to work something out. That's impressive. I want to give them credit for that, Rose. That is not easy. I agree.
00:03:16
Speaker 2: So how many hours did they deliberate today in addition to the 17 they deliberated yesterday? leading up to today?
00:03:23
Speaker 1: Nine to one, and then two to, well, not quite to four, but almost another six hours.
00:03:27
Speaker 2: So there would have been 23, maybe two to an hour. There between 22, 23 hours of deliberations, that is up there. And especially with what's at stake and the entire country watching and waiting, this has felt fairly excruciating, to be honest, because This, gosh, day five of deliberations, we knew this would be a tough case. We knew this would be an emotional case. We knew that this was actually not a black and white compare the facts with the evidence. No, this is actually so up for interpretation because the jurors, as we've talked about, aren't deciding guilt or innocence. They're deciding whether or not Lindsay Clancy was mentally capable of knowing right from wrong when she strangled her three children.
00:04:15
Speaker 1: And we saw the best experts in the business struggle with the question they're supposed to be figuring out now. How are they supposed to? We saw them under oath, on the stand, back to back to back to back to back. Doctor this, doctor that. Expert here, expert there. Guy's in his 70s. Clearly, he's been around a while. He must know what he's doing. This guy works over here with this other guy. They all have good credentials, Robes. They don't know if she was insane or not. So how the hell is a jury?
00:04:46
Speaker 2: And that's a very good point. And look, we don't want to jump ahead to assume this is going to end in a mistrial, but that's obviously possible at this point to consider that that is among the likely scenarios that this could end up being a hung jury, that this could, the judge could be forced to declare a mistrial. The idea of doing this all over again, going through all of this testimony again, bringing up those same experts again, to the stand, how are you going to get a different result? Because the issue with this case is that it is so complicated and it is, frankly, subjective.
00:05:26
Speaker 1: Robes, how are you going to get a better... Robes, the people you get next time, I bet you have some trying to get on this jury. Robes, this is all people are talking about now. We're watching... Political shows lead with this, right? News shows on cable that normally are talking nothing but president and politics. This story all of a sudden... Has been at the top for the past week or so. This is all everybody's talking about.
00:05:49
Speaker 2: And so now to get an, I hate to say an impartial jury, but certainly, look, we know that in some high profile cases, it's impossible to get a jury pool that isn't aware of the trial. But it has been so, it's been litigated, debated fiercely on television, online, in chat rooms everywhere. In a way that now to do it all over again and to dip back into a jury pool that has clearly been exposed to all of the public back and forth over this case.
00:06:22
Speaker 1: And probably participated in it. I bet a lot of people have. Robes in that area? You're not. What are you going to do? So what are the options? Let's go through what the options are now, Robes, with this jury. They're coming back tomorrow. To be five.
00:06:37
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay.
00:06:39
Speaker 1: They could come back and say, Judge, we're deadlocked. He could send them back one more time. That's an option, yes?
00:06:45
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:06:46
Speaker 1: They could also come back tomorrow and give us one of five possible verdicts, right?
00:06:52
Speaker 2: Correct.
00:06:53
Speaker 1: First degree, second degree, manslaughter, not guilty by reason of insanity, and not guilty. Those are the options. He does have one other option, Robes, to try to force a decision, a unanimous decision from this jury.
00:07:07
Speaker 2: Okay.
00:07:08
Speaker 1: In Robes, it has a terrible name.
00:07:10
Speaker 2: Yeah.
00:07:11
Speaker 1: It has a terrible nickname.
00:07:13
Speaker 2: Look, each state is different, and each state has different rules. I've heard of the Allen Charge. I know you have as well. It's also been called the Dynamite Charge.
00:07:21
Speaker 1: That doesn't sound good.
00:07:22
Speaker 2: That doesn't sound good at all. But in Massachusetts, it's called the Tui Rodriguez Charge, or they just sometimes call it the Rodriguez Charge. And the whole point is to... You don't want to coerce or pressure jurors, but you want to encourage them to re-examine where they stand on the case to consider. The judge actually challenges the jurors to consider differing viewpoints and stresses the importance of actually reaching a consensus, the importance to justice without abandoning your personal convictions. That's difficult.
00:08:05
Speaker 1: Robes, the language they have in some of these instructions to jurors is so confusing, but it boils down to, don't be afraid. It's okay to change your mind.
00:08:18
Speaker 2: Yes. So I actually have in, it's a mass.gov. They actually have a document that judges can use and rely for specific language when you're giving a Rodriguez charge. so that you can be persuasive but not coercive, basically. And some of this language, it's really interesting. These are some of the suggested ways to speak to the jury when you're instructing them. If it comes to this tomorrow, we could hear something to the effect of, in conferring together, you ought to give proper respect to each other's opinions and listen with an open mind to each other's arguments. Where there is disagreement, those jurors who are for acquittal should consider whether a doubt in their own minds is a reasonable one if it makes no impression on the minds of other jurors who are equally honest, equally intelligent, who have heard the same evidence with the same attention, with an equal desire to arrive at the truth, and who have taken the same oath as jurors. On the other hand, those jurors who are for conviction ought seriously to ask themselves whether they may not reasonably doubt the correctness of their judgment if it is not shared by other members of the jury. Bottom line, he is instructing them to open their minds and to consider the position of the other jurors and see if they can find it in their own hearts and minds to change their decisions.
00:09:47
Speaker 1: Consider you might be wrong. Consider. There's some language in a couple because they give kind of two different versions judges can choose from. But there's a suggestion that you sure you're not wrong? There's kind of. a suggestion. The way it's said is like, all those people are voting for guilt, but you're not. You sure you don't want to listen to what they might be saying? Ropes, that is what the thing is saying. A second version makes it... The other version, I guess this was a simpler. The one you read... I've got a... It's five pages long, actually. I was trying to keep up. But this line, Ropes, do not hesitate to re-examine your own views and change your opinion if you become convinced that it is erroneous. But do not surrender your honest conviction as to the weight or effect of the evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. Don't do it just to have a verdict. but also don't hesitate to re-examine your views and change your opinion.
00:10:43
Speaker 2: Yes, because in part of the language I'm looking at, you should consider that it is desirable that the case be decided. You should consider that you have been selected in the same manner and from the same source as any future jury would be. So it's just interesting, and you shouldn't suppose that this case will ever be submitted to other persons who are more intelligent, more impartial, or more competent to decide than you are.
00:11:09
Speaker 1: Yeah, do your job. Don't kick the can to somebody else.
00:11:11
Speaker 2: Exactly.
00:11:12
Speaker 1: Get it done.
00:11:12
Speaker 2: Exactly.
00:11:13
Speaker 1: This is tough, Robes. They call it a dynamite charge for a reason. Robes, it is, it's bizarre. They're there for a reason. But Robes, if you go through five weeks, if you go through 80 plus witnesses, you go through all these autopsy photos of babies, you don't want to put anybody through this again. You want some kind of answer. But Robes, if they genuinely cannot agree, they just cannot agree. But stay here, folks. We have some theories. You have to give us a break on this, but we have been watching juries for quite a while and even recently. We'll tell you what we think the deadlock means for what this jury is possibly trying to decide in that deliberation room. Stay here.
00:12:07
Speaker 2: Welcome back, everyone, to Amy and TJ. We just got a shocking update from the jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial. Triple murder trial. And yes, day four of deliberations has ended with the jury agreeing to go home and come back tomorrow and try again. They didn't come back to the judge and say, still can't get there, still can't find consensus. They agreed to try again on day five of deliberations. The judges sent them home once or sent them home, sent them back to the deliberation room once. He can send them back again tomorrow. Tomorrow, if they come back and say they're deadlocked, but at a certain point, they're going to run out of options.
00:12:50
Speaker 1: Yeah, and law there in Massachusetts allowed him to do it twice without their consent. We'll see if he gives them this, Alan, this Tui Rodriguez charge there to try to get a result. But their day-to-day robes, they came in a few minutes late, but around 9.15 they started deliberations. By 10.15... They had come out and said, we can't reach a decision. We're deadlocked. He sends them back robes. So then roughly 10, I don't know, 10, 20 to 1, they deliberate, have lunch for an hour, 1 to 2. And then from 2 to 3, 30, they deliberate, say we're out of here. That has been their day today.
00:13:31
Speaker 2: They gave up after an hour and a half more of deliberations after lunch. If you think about that, that means... They haven't gotten anywhere. If they were getting close, they would have stuck it out.
00:13:43
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
00:13:44
Speaker 2: That means the guess is, based on what happened today, they're hoping everyone takes some time off, gets some mental and physical rest, come back in the morning, do another round of, hey, what's your vote? And if they're still stuck... the way they're stuck now, they'll probably come back to the judge.
00:14:04
Speaker 1: And you know what? Maybe that's it. They aired it all out and said, hey, everybody, go sleep on it. We'll come in tomorrow, take a vote, and see where we are. Maybe that's exactly, Robes, maybe that's the way to go. Let's sleep on it, get some rest, come back fresh, and see if our votes are the same in the morning. What does this mean for the scenarios, Robes? This is exactly what we thought. There is no... We did this with the Diddy trial. You remember? You were the one that figured this out. I think even before Diddy's lawyers did. That when the jury came back and said we were split, it's a split verdict. Everybody was trying to figure out what's what, what's what. And you actually pieced together that, oh, wait a second. If they're split.
00:14:46
Speaker 1: Then there was no way he's guilty of that. So you figured out, and the lawyers did as well, that the two lesser charges were the ones that he was going to be found guilty on. What does this tell us, Robes, to hear they're deadlocked? They can't agree on what?
00:15:02
Speaker 2: Well, I would believe at this point there is either someone who is defiantly, or more than one person, who is refusing to budge from the extremes. Because the manslaughter option is really and truly like the olive branch, the meeting in the middle. But that must mean that either there are people who are so staunchly opposed to her spending any time in prison and only will be okay if she's found not guilty by reason of insanity or postpartum psychosis, or you have people on the other side who are just refusing to sign off on a verdict that doesn't have her actually fully found guilty of first-degree murder.
00:15:51
Speaker 1: What do you think the chances are that anybody in there is hardened in their stance on first-degree murder?
00:15:59
Speaker 2: I think it's very possible.
00:16:00
Speaker 1: You think it's possible someone's in there saying, there is no way y'all are going to convince me to do anything less than this.
00:16:05
Speaker 2: She's a monster. This is the ultimate act of betrayal on a child.
00:16:10
Speaker 1: You think those 12 people, after sitting through those five weeks... This ain't the public.
00:16:14
Speaker 2: After seeing those autopsy photos.
00:16:16
Speaker 1: But after also seeing her doctors, hearing all that evidence, seeing how she behaved. Robes, they heard it differently than the public heard it. It's hard for me to think that somebody sat through all that and thinks nothing is wrong with her.
00:16:32
Speaker 2: Well, they might think something's wrong with her, but it doesn't absolve her of her criminal responsibility. And they want her to spend the rest of her life behind bars. I only say that because I just see how passionately people are saying this online.
00:16:46
Speaker 1: I don't count.
00:16:46
Speaker 2: And all you need is one person on that jury who thinks the same thing.
00:16:50
Speaker 1: But I just don't think anybody's that passionate online that sat through those five weeks would be that passionate online. I just don't think so. You're supposed to be open-minded. Everybody online isn't. Now, if anybody in that jury room is not open-minded, they should call this now. But, folks, if you've got somebody on one end not guilty by reason of insanity and somebody first degree, they should go ahead and go home.
00:17:13
Speaker 2: And that might be where they are. And really, truly, you only need one person in those extreme. And I say extreme just because it's the most extreme of the two options of the five options. If you've got people sitting on the ends and they're refusing to come into the middle with manslaughter. That would be my guess. The majority of the folks are okay with manslaughter, but you've either got people who are standing firm with the not guilty by reason of insanity, or you've got some people standing firm with first degree murder, or you've got both. Maybe you've got people on both sides.
00:17:46
Speaker 1: But don't you think this signals, this is not likely that the argument in there is over first, second, or manslaughter, meaning those 12 people haven't decided she was sane. They are not in agreement that she's sane.
00:18:04
Speaker 2: Agreed.
00:18:04
Speaker 1: Because if they're in there arguing over first degree, secondary, and manslaughter, that's the difference between life up to 20 years and, well, no, life without parole, life with parole in 20 years. Robes, they can negotiate those prison sentences, can't they?
00:18:18
Speaker 2: Yeah, that feels like that's reasonable. And that's negotiable. You would be able to find common ground with that. I do think you've got to have at least one person who is just adamant. That she needs to spend the rest of her life behind bars or there is someone who is adamant that she absolutely is not criminally responsible because she was in a state of psychosis.
00:18:39
Speaker 1: I think it's, I would guess that in, babe. I would more so guess it's likely that someone is so set in not guilty by reason of insanity.
00:18:53
Speaker 2: They don't want to send her to prison.
00:18:54
Speaker 1: They don't want to at all. How many are doing that?
00:18:59
Speaker 2: I still think there's possibly someone on there who wants her to go to prison for the rest of her life.
00:19:04
Speaker 1: But then you can negotiate that if everybody else was on board with her going to prison. That's what I'm saying. They are doing the thing, baby. They can't figure out if she's sane or not.
00:19:14
Speaker 2: You are correct. And they can't decide whether or not... I don't think it's an issue. I think the prosecution even acknowledged she absolutely... was mentally ill. She absolutely was suffering from a mental illness, but that doesn't mean you can be depressed. You can have anxiety. You can have postpartum depression. That doesn't absolve you from your criminal responsibility. It would only be if she was in a state of psychosis. So I think there is probably a consensus and an acknowledgement that she was suffering from a mental disorder. But whether or not she's criminally responsible, just how severe was that mental disorder?
00:19:58
Speaker 1: That's why manslaughter is there. That's why manslaughter. They gave them the option to still say the mental illness contributed. It contributed, but She's still responsible. It gives them a way to split, right, Robes? And I'm sure.
00:20:13
Speaker 2: I'm actually with you now that I'm really trying to think about this. I do think it's probably more likely that someone is just, has had an experience personally, knows someone who they love, and they refuse to send her to prison.
00:20:28
Speaker 1: That's got to be.
00:20:29
Speaker 2: It, babe.
00:20:31
Speaker 1: And how many? Robes, you might have 11 in there who refuse to send her to prison, and one is like, hell no. All of y'all are crazy.
00:20:38
Speaker 2: She's going to prison for at least some amount of time if I have any say.
00:20:42
Speaker 1: But, man, the pressure on that one right now would be crazy.
00:20:45
Speaker 2: It seems like if they were down to 11 to 1, they wouldn't leave early. They'd be able to convince. They could gang up. It has to be a bigger split. It has to be a bigger split. Unless it was you. Like I said, if once you've made up your mind, you ain't changing it. And there might be someone like that, but I bet you it's a bigger split. I bet you it's a wider margin.
00:21:07
Speaker 1: Folks, it's been a hell of a day. We didn't know this would be the update. But thank you for sticking with us throughout the day on our feed here. As you see, we've been giving you the updates. We will be at it again tomorrow. Jury coming back 9 a.m. for Day 5 of deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy trial. They will start tomorrow at what hour? How many hours in?
00:21:26
Speaker 2: 9 a.m. And they're like at 22, 23 hours, somewhere around there. That's how long. They have almost been deliberating... For a full 24-hour period, and they're certainly going to hit that tomorrow when they get into session.
00:21:39
Speaker 1: We will be watching in the morning, and then we'll turn to the waiting. We appreciate you, as always, spending some time with us. I'm TJ, on behalf of my dear Amy Robach. We'll talk to you all real soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Tuesday, September 1st. We will have a day five of jury deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. With that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Just moments ago, before we hopped on this microphone, the judge came in robes. Jury's going home early again today after what was. A fairly, if you can call a very quiet day, eventful. We were on the edge of our seats.
00:00:30
Speaker 2: Yes, the entire day waiting for the jury to come back with something after they came back pretty early on, within, what, an hour or so of going back this morning on Tuesday, saying, hey, judge, we're deadlocked. The judge sent them back and we're waiting, waiting, waiting. They went to lunch thinking, okay, when they come back, we're going to hear something. Yeah, we just heard something. They want to come back tomorrow and try again.
00:00:57
Speaker 1: Didn't see this coming. I would have guessed a mistrial or we would hear from them again or something. I did not think we'd get to the end of the day. And they'll say they voluntarily said, let us go home for the night. Folks, this just happened. So they usually been going home during the whole trial. They've been going from nine to four. Is this two days now in their deliberations? This jury has asked to go home early. What is that supposed to mean?
00:01:24
Speaker 2: It means they're mentally exhausted.
00:01:26
Speaker 1: They're exhausted.
00:01:26
Speaker 2: They're exhausted. It means they're not getting anywhere. It means they're deadlocked. I mean, think about any time you're having a disagreement or an argument with someone and you can't find common ground or you can't come to a conclusion. Just how mentally that just drains you.
00:01:42
Speaker 1: Can we talk about this in the morning? Can we please talk about this in the morning?
00:01:45
Speaker 2: And I think that's what the jury is basically saying. We need to go home, regroup, get a good night's sleep, and start fresh again in the morning. And look, this is significant because we heard the judge today send the jury back to continue their deliberations. And that is significant because in the state of Massachusetts... a judge can only send a deadlocked jury back to deliberate twice. You can't send a jury back more than twice. Without their consent. Correct, without their consent. That's true. That is a very important caveat. But the point being is he's already sent them back once, so he can send them back again. And I guess you're right. He could send them back a third time if they agreed to go back and try again.
00:02:29
Speaker 1: If he sends them back a second time, they know. Well, I don't know if they know Massachusetts law or not, but they know we're in control now. We can get out of here anytime we want because this dude cannot do this to us again. Robes, I right now give them credit. I did not anticipate this day going fully. This jury has now been doing this for 23 hours over four days. They have been deliberating for 23 hours. Robes, but they came out. This morning and said, we can't do it. Rose, they went into a room at 10.15 after telling the judge we're deadlocked. And they sat in there together for another five hours to try to work something out. That's impressive. I want to give them credit for that, Rose. That is not easy. I agree.
00:03:16
Speaker 2: So how many hours did they deliberate today in addition to the 17 they deliberated yesterday? leading up to today?
00:03:23
Speaker 1: Nine to one, and then two to, well, not quite to four, but almost another six hours.
00:03:27
Speaker 2: So there would have been 23, maybe two to an hour. There between 22, 23 hours of deliberations, that is up there. And especially with what's at stake and the entire country watching and waiting, this has felt fairly excruciating, to be honest, because This, gosh, day five of deliberations, we knew this would be a tough case. We knew this would be an emotional case. We knew that this was actually not a black and white compare the facts with the evidence. No, this is actually so up for interpretation because the jurors, as we've talked about, aren't deciding guilt or innocence. They're deciding whether or not Lindsay Clancy was mentally capable of knowing right from wrong when she strangled her three children.
00:04:15
Speaker 1: And we saw the best experts in the business struggle with the question they're supposed to be figuring out now. How are they supposed to? We saw them under oath, on the stand, back to back to back to back to back. Doctor this, doctor that. Expert here, expert there. Guy's in his 70s. Clearly, he's been around a while. He must know what he's doing. This guy works over here with this other guy. They all have good credentials, Robes. They don't know if she was insane or not. So how the hell is a jury?
00:04:46
Speaker 2: And that's a very good point. And look, we don't want to jump ahead to assume this is going to end in a mistrial, but that's obviously possible at this point to consider that that is among the likely scenarios that this could end up being a hung jury, that this could, the judge could be forced to declare a mistrial. The idea of doing this all over again, going through all of this testimony again, bringing up those same experts again, to the stand, how are you going to get a different result? Because the issue with this case is that it is so complicated and it is, frankly, subjective.
00:05:26
Speaker 1: Robes, how are you going to get a better... Robes, the people you get next time, I bet you have some trying to get on this jury. Robes, this is all people are talking about now. We're watching... Political shows lead with this, right? News shows on cable that normally are talking nothing but president and politics. This story all of a sudden... Has been at the top for the past week or so. This is all everybody's talking about.
00:05:49
Speaker 2: And so now to get an, I hate to say an impartial jury, but certainly, look, we know that in some high profile cases, it's impossible to get a jury pool that isn't aware of the trial. But it has been so, it's been litigated, debated fiercely on television, online, in chat rooms everywhere. In a way that now to do it all over again and to dip back into a jury pool that has clearly been exposed to all of the public back and forth over this case.
00:06:22
Speaker 1: And probably participated in it. I bet a lot of people have. Robes in that area? You're not. What are you going to do? So what are the options? Let's go through what the options are now, Robes, with this jury. They're coming back tomorrow. To be five.
00:06:37
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay.
00:06:39
Speaker 1: They could come back and say, Judge, we're deadlocked. He could send them back one more time. That's an option, yes?
00:06:45
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:06:46
Speaker 1: They could also come back tomorrow and give us one of five possible verdicts, right?
00:06:52
Speaker 2: Correct.
00:06:53
Speaker 1: First degree, second degree, manslaughter, not guilty by reason of insanity, and not guilty. Those are the options. He does have one other option, Robes, to try to force a decision, a unanimous decision from this jury.
00:07:07
Speaker 2: Okay.
00:07:08
Speaker 1: In Robes, it has a terrible name.
00:07:10
Speaker 2: Yeah.
00:07:11
Speaker 1: It has a terrible nickname.
00:07:13
Speaker 2: Look, each state is different, and each state has different rules. I've heard of the Allen Charge. I know you have as well. It's also been called the Dynamite Charge.
00:07:21
Speaker 1: That doesn't sound good.
00:07:22
Speaker 2: That doesn't sound good at all. But in Massachusetts, it's called the Tui Rodriguez Charge, or they just sometimes call it the Rodriguez Charge. And the whole point is to... You don't want to coerce or pressure jurors, but you want to encourage them to re-examine where they stand on the case to consider. The judge actually challenges the jurors to consider differing viewpoints and stresses the importance of actually reaching a consensus, the importance to justice without abandoning your personal convictions. That's difficult.
00:08:05
Speaker 1: Robes, the language they have in some of these instructions to jurors is so confusing, but it boils down to, don't be afraid. It's okay to change your mind.
00:08:18
Speaker 2: Yes. So I actually have in, it's a mass.gov. They actually have a document that judges can use and rely for specific language when you're giving a Rodriguez charge. so that you can be persuasive but not coercive, basically. And some of this language, it's really interesting. These are some of the suggested ways to speak to the jury when you're instructing them. If it comes to this tomorrow, we could hear something to the effect of, in conferring together, you ought to give proper respect to each other's opinions and listen with an open mind to each other's arguments. Where there is disagreement, those jurors who are for acquittal should consider whether a doubt in their own minds is a reasonable one if it makes no impression on the minds of other jurors who are equally honest, equally intelligent, who have heard the same evidence with the same attention, with an equal desire to arrive at the truth, and who have taken the same oath as jurors. On the other hand, those jurors who are for conviction ought seriously to ask themselves whether they may not reasonably doubt the correctness of their judgment if it is not shared by other members of the jury. Bottom line, he is instructing them to open their minds and to consider the position of the other jurors and see if they can find it in their own hearts and minds to change their decisions.
00:09:47
Speaker 1: Consider you might be wrong. Consider. There's some language in a couple because they give kind of two different versions judges can choose from. But there's a suggestion that you sure you're not wrong? There's kind of. a suggestion. The way it's said is like, all those people are voting for guilt, but you're not. You sure you don't want to listen to what they might be saying? Ropes, that is what the thing is saying. A second version makes it... The other version, I guess this was a simpler. The one you read... I've got a... It's five pages long, actually. I was trying to keep up. But this line, Ropes, do not hesitate to re-examine your own views and change your opinion if you become convinced that it is erroneous. But do not surrender your honest conviction as to the weight or effect of the evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. Don't do it just to have a verdict. but also don't hesitate to re-examine your views and change your opinion.
00:10:43
Speaker 2: Yes, because in part of the language I'm looking at, you should consider that it is desirable that the case be decided. You should consider that you have been selected in the same manner and from the same source as any future jury would be. So it's just interesting, and you shouldn't suppose that this case will ever be submitted to other persons who are more intelligent, more impartial, or more competent to decide than you are.
00:11:09
Speaker 1: Yeah, do your job. Don't kick the can to somebody else.
00:11:11
Speaker 2: Exactly.
00:11:12
Speaker 1: Get it done.
00:11:12
Speaker 2: Exactly.
00:11:13
Speaker 1: This is tough, Robes. They call it a dynamite charge for a reason. Robes, it is, it's bizarre. They're there for a reason. But Robes, if you go through five weeks, if you go through 80 plus witnesses, you go through all these autopsy photos of babies, you don't want to put anybody through this again. You want some kind of answer. But Robes, if they genuinely cannot agree, they just cannot agree. But stay here, folks. We have some theories. You have to give us a break on this, but we have been watching juries for quite a while and even recently. We'll tell you what we think the deadlock means for what this jury is possibly trying to decide in that deliberation room. Stay here.
00:12:07
Speaker 2: Welcome back, everyone, to Amy and TJ. We just got a shocking update from the jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial. Triple murder trial. And yes, day four of deliberations has ended with the jury agreeing to go home and come back tomorrow and try again. They didn't come back to the judge and say, still can't get there, still can't find consensus. They agreed to try again on day five of deliberations. The judges sent them home once or sent them home, sent them back to the deliberation room once. He can send them back again tomorrow. Tomorrow, if they come back and say they're deadlocked, but at a certain point, they're going to run out of options.
00:12:50
Speaker 1: Yeah, and law there in Massachusetts allowed him to do it twice without their consent. We'll see if he gives them this, Alan, this Tui Rodriguez charge there to try to get a result. But their day-to-day robes, they came in a few minutes late, but around 9.15 they started deliberations. By 10.15... They had come out and said, we can't reach a decision. We're deadlocked. He sends them back robes. So then roughly 10, I don't know, 10, 20 to 1, they deliberate, have lunch for an hour, 1 to 2. And then from 2 to 3, 30, they deliberate, say we're out of here. That has been their day today.
00:13:31
Speaker 2: They gave up after an hour and a half more of deliberations after lunch. If you think about that, that means... They haven't gotten anywhere. If they were getting close, they would have stuck it out.
00:13:43
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
00:13:44
Speaker 2: That means the guess is, based on what happened today, they're hoping everyone takes some time off, gets some mental and physical rest, come back in the morning, do another round of, hey, what's your vote? And if they're still stuck... the way they're stuck now, they'll probably come back to the judge.
00:14:04
Speaker 1: And you know what? Maybe that's it. They aired it all out and said, hey, everybody, go sleep on it. We'll come in tomorrow, take a vote, and see where we are. Maybe that's exactly, Robes, maybe that's the way to go. Let's sleep on it, get some rest, come back fresh, and see if our votes are the same in the morning. What does this mean for the scenarios, Robes? This is exactly what we thought. There is no... We did this with the Diddy trial. You remember? You were the one that figured this out. I think even before Diddy's lawyers did. That when the jury came back and said we were split, it's a split verdict. Everybody was trying to figure out what's what, what's what. And you actually pieced together that, oh, wait a second. If they're split.
00:14:46
Speaker 1: Then there was no way he's guilty of that. So you figured out, and the lawyers did as well, that the two lesser charges were the ones that he was going to be found guilty on. What does this tell us, Robes, to hear they're deadlocked? They can't agree on what?
00:15:02
Speaker 2: Well, I would believe at this point there is either someone who is defiantly, or more than one person, who is refusing to budge from the extremes. Because the manslaughter option is really and truly like the olive branch, the meeting in the middle. But that must mean that either there are people who are so staunchly opposed to her spending any time in prison and only will be okay if she's found not guilty by reason of insanity or postpartum psychosis, or you have people on the other side who are just refusing to sign off on a verdict that doesn't have her actually fully found guilty of first-degree murder.
00:15:51
Speaker 1: What do you think the chances are that anybody in there is hardened in their stance on first-degree murder?
00:15:59
Speaker 2: I think it's very possible.
00:16:00
Speaker 1: You think it's possible someone's in there saying, there is no way y'all are going to convince me to do anything less than this.
00:16:05
Speaker 2: She's a monster. This is the ultimate act of betrayal on a child.
00:16:10
Speaker 1: You think those 12 people, after sitting through those five weeks... This ain't the public.
00:16:14
Speaker 2: After seeing those autopsy photos.
00:16:16
Speaker 1: But after also seeing her doctors, hearing all that evidence, seeing how she behaved. Robes, they heard it differently than the public heard it. It's hard for me to think that somebody sat through all that and thinks nothing is wrong with her.
00:16:32
Speaker 2: Well, they might think something's wrong with her, but it doesn't absolve her of her criminal responsibility. And they want her to spend the rest of her life behind bars. I only say that because I just see how passionately people are saying this online.
00:16:46
Speaker 1: I don't count.
00:16:46
Speaker 2: And all you need is one person on that jury who thinks the same thing.
00:16:50
Speaker 1: But I just don't think anybody's that passionate online that sat through those five weeks would be that passionate online. I just don't think so. You're supposed to be open-minded. Everybody online isn't. Now, if anybody in that jury room is not open-minded, they should call this now. But, folks, if you've got somebody on one end not guilty by reason of insanity and somebody first degree, they should go ahead and go home.
00:17:13
Speaker 2: And that might be where they are. And really, truly, you only need one person in those extreme. And I say extreme just because it's the most extreme of the two options of the five options. If you've got people sitting on the ends and they're refusing to come into the middle with manslaughter. That would be my guess. The majority of the folks are okay with manslaughter, but you've either got people who are standing firm with the not guilty by reason of insanity, or you've got some people standing firm with first degree murder, or you've got both. Maybe you've got people on both sides.
00:17:46
Speaker 1: But don't you think this signals, this is not likely that the argument in there is over first, second, or manslaughter, meaning those 12 people haven't decided she was sane. They are not in agreement that she's sane.
00:18:04
Speaker 2: Agreed.
00:18:04
Speaker 1: Because if they're in there arguing over first degree, secondary, and manslaughter, that's the difference between life up to 20 years and, well, no, life without parole, life with parole in 20 years. Robes, they can negotiate those prison sentences, can't they?
00:18:18
Speaker 2: Yeah, that feels like that's reasonable. And that's negotiable. You would be able to find common ground with that. I do think you've got to have at least one person who is just adamant. That she needs to spend the rest of her life behind bars or there is someone who is adamant that she absolutely is not criminally responsible because she was in a state of psychosis.
00:18:39
Speaker 1: I think it's, I would guess that in, babe. I would more so guess it's likely that someone is so set in not guilty by reason of insanity.
00:18:53
Speaker 2: They don't want to send her to prison.
00:18:54
Speaker 1: They don't want to at all. How many are doing that?
00:18:59
Speaker 2: I still think there's possibly someone on there who wants her to go to prison for the rest of her life.
00:19:04
Speaker 1: But then you can negotiate that if everybody else was on board with her going to prison. That's what I'm saying. They are doing the thing, baby. They can't figure out if she's sane or not.
00:19:14
Speaker 2: You are correct. And they can't decide whether or not... I don't think it's an issue. I think the prosecution even acknowledged she absolutely... was mentally ill. She absolutely was suffering from a mental illness, but that doesn't mean you can be depressed. You can have anxiety. You can have postpartum depression. That doesn't absolve you from your criminal responsibility. It would only be if she was in a state of psychosis. So I think there is probably a consensus and an acknowledgement that she was suffering from a mental disorder. But whether or not she's criminally responsible, just how severe was that mental disorder?
00:19:58
Speaker 1: That's why manslaughter is there. That's why manslaughter. They gave them the option to still say the mental illness contributed. It contributed, but She's still responsible. It gives them a way to split, right, Robes? And I'm sure.
00:20:13
Speaker 2: I'm actually with you now that I'm really trying to think about this. I do think it's probably more likely that someone is just, has had an experience personally, knows someone who they love, and they refuse to send her to prison.
00:20:28
Speaker 1: That's got to be.
00:20:29
Speaker 2: It, babe.
00:20:31
Speaker 1: And how many? Robes, you might have 11 in there who refuse to send her to prison, and one is like, hell no. All of y'all are crazy.
00:20:38
Speaker 2: She's going to prison for at least some amount of time if I have any say.
00:20:42
Speaker 1: But, man, the pressure on that one right now would be crazy.
00:20:45
Speaker 2: It seems like if they were down to 11 to 1, they wouldn't leave early. They'd be able to convince. They could gang up. It has to be a bigger split. It has to be a bigger split. Unless it was you. Like I said, if once you've made up your mind, you ain't changing it. And there might be someone like that, but I bet you it's a bigger split. I bet you it's a wider margin.
00:21:07
Speaker 1: Folks, it's been a hell of a day. We didn't know this would be the update. But thank you for sticking with us throughout the day on our feed here. As you see, we've been giving you the updates. We will be at it again tomorrow. Jury coming back 9 a.m. for Day 5 of deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy trial. They will start tomorrow at what hour? How many hours in?
00:21:26
Speaker 2: 9 a.m. And they're like at 22, 23 hours, somewhere around there. That's how long. They have almost been deliberating... For a full 24-hour period, and they're certainly going to hit that tomorrow when they get into session.
00:21:39
Speaker 1: We will be watching in the morning, and then we'll turn to the waiting. We appreciate you, as always, spending some time with us. I'm TJ, on behalf of my dear Amy Robach. We'll talk to you all real soon.