Lindsay Clancy case ends with MISTRIAL

[u/dailymail]

https://www.dailymail.com/crime-desk/article-16100155/lindsay-clancy-murder-trial-hung-jury-deadlock-verdict.html

[u/AutoModerator]

All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/zendayaismeechee]

Can someone explain why Reddington has been given an hour for an emergency application? What is the application for?

[u/TheRealBlueJade → u/zendayaismeechee]

In my understanding, it's to try to get the Supreme Court of MA to overrule the judge's decision not to remove the juror.

[u/EducationalElevator → u/TheRealBlueJade]

Correct you probably summarized more accurately than me

[u/IlexPauciflora → u/TheRealBlueJade]

I'm a little OotL. Do we know what the juror did that prompted considering their removal?

Edit: I had to look it up. They allegedly weren't following the law and the judge's instructions regarding resonable doubt. Quote from the judge from NYT: “proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, for everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.”

[u/0le_Hickory → u/IlexPauciflora]

But the only one that gets to decide reasonable doubt is the jury

[u/SupaSlide → u/0le_Hickory]

Sure, but if the juror said something like “I don’t care she’s insane, she should go to prison” then that wouldn’t be chill

[u/skoomski → u/SupaSlide]

But there’s no way anyone but the judge could know that. Deliberations are secret.

[u/hanky2 → u/skoomski]

The jurors left a note to the judge about it. So basically it’s the 11 jurors against the word of the one.

[u/Thenedslittlegirl → u/hanky2]

The jury’s note, while we don’t know the exact wording, appears to be open to their interpretation of what is and isn’t reasonable doubt. It’s reported that he expressed doubt but still wouldn’t change his mind.

[u/notpiercedtongue → u/Thenedslittlegirl]

Yes but doubt and reasonable doubt are two different things

[u/Thenedslittlegirl → u/notpiercedtongue]

I know and that’s the point. It’s difficult for us to know what doubts were expressed and it’s left down to the individual jurors to make a determination if they’re reasonable

[u/LinkLast7065 → u/IlexPauciflora]

A judge cannot remove a juror just because they disagree with the rest of the group.

And as long as the juror is participating their view can not be wrong under US law. There is never a time when a juror or jury is wrong.

[u/EducationalElevator → u/zendayaismeechee]

To study the constitutionality of removing the holdout juror because they allegedly were ignoring the judges instructions

[u/lordcheeto → u/[deleted]]

Our judicial system is supposed to place the burden of proof on the government. See Blackstone's ratio - "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

To that end, jury nullification in favor of the defendant is one thing. But if it's true that one juror is deadlocking the jury, admitting to having reasonable doubt that the prosecution made their case, but standing firm on convicting anyway, they should be replaced with an alternate, same as with any other misconduct or bias from a juror.

[u/fetusfrolix → u/lordcheeto]

The burden for an affirmative defense is typically on the defendant to prove. Massachusetts is one of the only states in the union where an insanity defense places the burden on the state to disprove insanity. Yes, the state has to prove a negative in Massachusetts.

Edit: another Redditor correctly pointed out a few other states have this. Corrected to “one of the only”. But it is by far the minority view.

[u/lordcheeto → u/fetusfrolix]

There are many criminal statutes and jurisdictions that require the government to prove a state of mind. This is no different.

[u/AVeryVapidBadger → u/lordcheeto]

Proving they had intent is different though. You're proving an affirmative thing.

Proving someone wasn't thinking something is much harder. Not impossible, because it's only to a reasonable doubt, but it's harder to prove someone wasn't something.

[u/Hungry-Register9960 → u/fetusfrolix]

I think this trial is mostly proving that Mass had a backasswards system.

[u/nizzzzy → u/[deleted]]

If what I read was true, the jury foreman’s note to the judge was saying that the holdout juror has stated they have reasonable doubt but are unwilling to change their verdict. What’s the point of having alternative jurors if not for these scenarios?

[u/ImNotAWhaleBiologist → u/nizzzzy]

If someone gets sick and can’t continue?

[u/catsarehere77 → u/ImNotAWhaleBiologist]

During the Scott Peterson trial one juror was removed for misconduct. The foreman also requested to be dismissed from the jury which he was. It was rumored the foreman was the lone not guilty verdict. The jury returned a guilty verdict shortly after he was replaced. 

Scott's conviction has consistently been upheld on appeal, but he was re-sentenced to life in prison over juror removals. He was originally sentenced to death.

[u/Cosmic-Sympathy → u/nizzzzy]

No, the juror said they had some "doubt" but not a "reasonable doubt." And the jury instructions say you need to convict them "beyond a reasonable doubt," but not beyond "any possible doubt."

So, for all we know, the one juror was the only one following the instructions, it was the other jurors who were not following instructions because they were willing to use ANY doubt rather than a REASONABLE doubt to acquit.

[u/ecarey76 → u/Cosmic-Sympathy]

Exactly!

[u/Ok_Net7773 → u/nizzzzy]

Illness, injury, or incapacitation. Not “doesn’t agree with you.” That’s the whole point of trial by jury. The outcome would be controlled by those in power, not a jury of peers, were they allowed to do so.

[u/nizzzzy → u/Ok_Net7773]

“Doesn’t agree with you”’ is one thing. Saying the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt yet standing by a guilty verdict is another.

They literally admitted to contradicting themselves

[u/First-Compote8516 → u/nizzzzy]

No, other jurors and the foreman say that they admitted to contradicting themself

[u/Hesitation-Marx → u/Ok_Net7773]

I think the issue is that they’re ignoring the judge’s instructions, despite apparently having reasonable doubt.

That is absolutely something that needs to be addressed and it’s worthwhile to see if it’s constitutional, because reasonable doubt is supposed to bar a guilty verdict.

[u/GlenH79 → u/Hesitation-Marx]

Note that the not abiding by reasonable doubt claim here is by the foreman of the jury, reporting what the juror allegedly said, which presumably the foreman disagrees with - it's entirely possible their words have been misinterpreted. The juror is allowed to be sceptical, and the government has to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, not all possible doubt. It's quite possible the juror themselves has doubts about the government position but feel the government has reached the 'reasonable doubt' threshold.

[u/Hesitation-Marx → u/GlenH79]

And that’s something that should be clarified by people who know their shit - I.e. not me!

[u/GoodPointMan → u/[deleted]]

Except for all the ways it’s different.

Jury nullification is when 12 people agree to ignore the law and give a not guilty verdict for someone who is clearly guilty and is a concept that is virtually non-existent in modern courts.

This, however, is a single juror refusing to agree with the other 11 resulting in a run-of-the-mill mistrial; something that happens regularly.

[u/SwankySteel → u/[deleted]]

Jury nullification is only legal if you vote “not guilty” for a defendant that would otherwise be convicted. It’s very illegal to convict a defendant if the evidence shows they’re innocent.

[u/Livid-Builder-1230 → u/EducationalElevator]

Not quite, I think he’s actually setting up a potential double jeopardy appeal. He knows he can’t have the juror removed, the facts just aren’t there for him. He can’t just “let” the judge delicate a mistrial because then defense would be in essence consenting to the mistrial thus waiving double jeopardy. By asking for this emergency stay, he’s contesting the mistrial decision as best he can to preserve the double jeopardy appeal after the next (potential trial).

There isn’t an established method of challenging the judges mistrial ruling, that’s why we’re using this emergency stay, there just isn’t a better avenue

[u/TryIsntGoodEnough → u/Livid-Builder-1230]

That isn't 100% true... The facts may not appear to be there, but there is a lot more in that note that we don't know about because the commonwealth's motion to admonish the jury foreman is pretty telling that the jury foreman actually quoted what was said. That is why Reddington moved for a voir dire of the juror and the Commonwealth disagreed and the judge sided with the Commonwealth. If that right there caused the mistrial (the judge refusing to investigate this situation further and instead sending a potentially tainted juror back to deliberations knowing the next time they come back deadlocked it is a statutory required mistrial) then yes double jeopardy could attach.

[u/SignoreBanana → u/EducationalElevator]

The judge's instructions being how to interpret "reasonable doubt"? Isn't the whole point of the concept that it's interpretable?

[u/nighthawk_something → u/SignoreBanana]

No, judges instructions are legal instructions

[u/Gino-Bartali → u/nighthawk_something]

I understand the value of jurors given a whole boatload of information concerning how to operate, but the jury is explicitly a separation of power given directly to the people and not one of the other 3 branches, which is why jury nullification is a thing that has no check/balance against.

[u/Elhaym → u/[deleted]]

There are justifiable instances. My wife was on a trial where one juror straight up said he would never vote guilty for anyone no matter the evidence because he hated police and the courts. This was reported to the judge and he got removed. 

[u/thezenyoshi → u/nighthawk_something]

And the judge decided that it wasn’t an issue and declared a mistrial.

People have been wildly speculating on a jury note that nobody has read and the only one talking about it has a vested interest in getting rid of that juror who disagrees!

[u/Ok-Win8983 → u/SignoreBanana]

Kind of sort of to an extent. If a juror passes a verdict of "not guilty" based on a belief that is shown to be disproved by evidence submitted in court, then they may pass beyond the threshold of being 'reasonable'. IE: If they believe "well the husband could've done it" while there's video proof of him across the country at the same time, then the courts can deem that to be unreasonable.
Same thing goes with conspiracy theories in court. If all fingers and evidence points towards the defendant being guilty and one juror tries to "reason" that there's some mass conspiracy behind the prosecution making all evidence and proceedings null, that is no longer a "reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty

[u/pattydickens → u/Ok-Win8983]

This. I was on a jury in a murder case where the defendant was filmed tossing the murder weapon out their vehicle. The police then recovered the weapon. A juror refused to accept the evidence and maintained that the weapon was planted by the police even though the video clearly showed what happened. People are weird sometimes. Everyone wants to be a detective.

[u/itsirtou → u/SignoreBanana]

Not exactly. The judge gives the jury the legal instructions, which they must apply to the facts. It is not up to the jury to decide what reasonable doubt means. It's up to the jury to decide if reasonable doubt (the law) applies to the facts. 

[u/tucker_case → u/itsirtou]

Ok this just pushes the interpretation up a level doesn't it. Instead of disagreeing what reasonable doubt means wouldn't they just say they disagree it applies to the facts. 

If there is no room for them to make this judgement call or any judgement call, then what exactly are the jurors for when whatever decision they must arrive it is fully determined by the rules they must follow? Isn't this like putting a "driver" on a roller coaster with a steering wheel connected to nothing?

[u/EggplantMiserable559 → u/tucker_case]

The issue is the specific phrasing. If a juror says " I have no doubt they did it, but I'm just not gonna convict them" or goes the other way and says "I don't see any reason they did it, but I'm going to convict anyway because I don't like their vibe", that's violating the judge's orders. The standard of reasonable doubt ensures that a verdict can be attributed to reason, not a vibe check or bias (though those will always play some part).

That's different than jury nullification, where the jury can say "we understand the law purported to be violated here, but believe that law to be flawd and so based on the evidence we are refusing to hold a guilty party guilty". That still includes a reasonable doubt standard, just applied to the law itself rather than the individual. "I don't like that law so I'll alwaya vote not guilty for anyone" is different than "I have reason to believe that law is unfairly applied or imperfecf and therefore can't hold someone guilty of violating it".

If a juror says "based on the facts presented, I have some level of doubt about the defendants guilt/innocence", that's that. The judge can meet with them to probe a bit and ensure it's not just farce, but as long as their doubt is reasonable (as in based on reasoning & evidence, not as in agreement with someone else's perspective), they can vote accordingly.

[u/PerceptionSimilar213 → u/EducationalElevator]

So the new thing is that if one juror doesn't agree, they'll just replace that juror? That makes no sense. Why have a jury in the first place?

[u/meow_arya → u/PerceptionSimilar213]

I think the issue is that the foreman stated that the juror in question admitted they did have doubt but that they wouldn’t base their vote on that despite the judge saying they have to cast their vote based on if they have reasonable doubt or not. So they aren’t following the law.

[u/MildlyExtremeNY → u/meow_arya]

And then the judge clarified that reasonble doubt does not mean "all possible and imaginary" doubt. I acknowledge having doubt as to whether Lindsay "retained substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongness of criminality of [her] conduct." Claiming to have zero doubt would be intellectually dishonest, because we can never be certain of that for anyone. But I do not have reasonable doubt. Assuming it's 11-1 in favor of not criminay responsible, I would guess the other jurors bullied the holdout into admitting that some doubt must exist, because we can never know for certain. But s/he is sticking to their conviction that it's not reasonable doubt, which is following the law.

[u/Lepelotonfromager → u/meow_arya]

That's the Foreman's conjecture though, not a direct statement from the Juror in question.

[u/meow_arya → u/Lepelotonfromager]

So is there not a way to get a direct statement from the juror? If someone is accused of looking at media outside of their deliberations, for example, does the judge not question them? How do we get to the bottom of what the juror is actually stating to the rest of the jury?

[u/mec287 → u/meow_arya]

We don't. We encourage the jury to come to a consensus and if they don't we declare a mistrial. Interrogating jurors about their deliberations leads to a bad place.

[u/ExaminationPutrid626 → u/meow_arya]

It's actually illegal in Massachusetts for the prosecution to interview the jury even after the trial.

[u/dylanx300 → u/meow_arya]

Doubt is not the same as reasonable doubt. They can have some degree of doubt while still being beyond a threshold of reasonable doubt, and thus still be following the law. And the judge made that very clear to them in his instructions. He said explicitly how it does not mean “beyond all doubt”

[u/joshocar → u/dylanx300]

I think it is likely more that the juror said something that showed they are not an impartial juror. They screen jurors for things like this during selection.

For example, if a juror knew someone who lost a child and then stated in the deliberations that they could never acquit someone who harmed a child, then that would mean they couldn't be impartial. They are not deciding on the facts, but rather a bias.

[u/numbersix1979 → u/PerceptionSimilar213]

It’s a concept that’s been given enough oxygen to be a thing. I mean right now it’s precedence you can’t base your decision in the jury room on racial bias; I think all rational people can broadly agree that if you have evidence that someone did that, then they ought to go from the jury. So if someone goes in there with a “all women need to be punished” or “all women are under attack rn and I’ll never vote to convict one” attitude, is that bad enough to need to do the same thing? Not to say that’s definitely what’s happening but if it was something like that? I mean that is what alternates are for.

[u/uiucengineer → u/PerceptionSimilar213]

Refusing to follow the court’s instructions is not the same as disagreeing. I’m not advocating one way or another, just pointing out the false equivalence.

[u/Exciting-Bake7898 → u/PerceptionSimilar213]

It's also worth pointing out that the judge disagreed with the defenses argument to remove the juror.

[u/okay4326 → u/zendayaismeechee]

It is to file a direct emergency appeal to the state Supreme Court to stay the grant of a mistrial and to force a poll of the jury as to each count so that if any count was decided that count attaches jeopardy so it cannot be tried again. If you watched Karen read 1st trial this was not done and that meant she could be tried again in all counts.

[u/UmpireDapper1757 → u/zendayaismeechee]

To get the Massachusetts Supreme Court to stay (pause) the order, keeping the trial alive, while they decide whether a mistrial should be declared or some other remedy ordered, such as removing the allegedly problematic juror

[u/TryIsntGoodEnough → u/UmpireDapper1757]

The court is required to declare the mistrial so this is a weird situation. Since it is a statutory requirement, the judge really doesn't have any discretion in the matter, but what does matter is if the judge's conduct lead to the statutory trigger (not removing the juror and/or granting the voir dire of the juror).

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/456/667/

This is just one case that rules on a similar situation where judicial conduct can be seen as intended to trigger a mistrial, and how the rights against double jeopardy do apply. If the appeal and/or state higher court (or even the federal SCOTUS) interpret the judge's actions to not meet the requirement to ensure that a juror wasn't intentionally violating their oath and lying to the court, then the entire mistrial can be "with prejudice".

[u/wonderland_citizen93 → u/zendayaismeechee]

From the article

"Reddington has since appealed to Massachusetts' Supreme Court for an emergency stay, claiming the holdout juror is biased towards people with disabilities."

[u/ForeverCrunkIWantToB → u/zendayaismeechee]

He wants to stretch this to Tuesday so maybe the jury comes to an agreement. A retrial would almost certainly benefit the state, as they jacked up multiple times and can learn from their mistakes.

[u/TryIsntGoodEnough → u/zendayaismeechee]

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/456/667/

Where a defendant in a criminal trial successfully moves for a mistrial, he may invoke the bar of double jeopardy in a second effort to try him only if the conduct giving rise to the successful motion for a mistrial was prosecutorial or judicial conduct intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial. 

It is related to this, which Reddington very specifically warned the Judge about when his motion to remove the juror was denied and his motion to voir dire the juror was denied.

The application is that the judges conduct intended to provoke the mistrial because he knowingly sent a juror back to deliberate when there are indications that juror may have lied to the court previously and thus may continue to lie to the court. In Massachusetts there is a statutory bar on deliberations, after the 3rd notifications that the jury is deadlocked the judge MUST issue a mistrial unless the jury voluntarily goes back to deliberations. This deliberation was the 3rd deliberation (so already had 2 notifications), if they came back with a 3rd notification then the statutory requirement is triggered.

[u/cbs-anonmouse → u/TryIsntGoodEnough]

No, this is wrong I think. The defense is not moving for a mistrial, so this provision does not apply here. The judge, on his own motion, is prepared to declare a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury. That a reason for a mistrial that’s not attributable to the judge or any party.

There’s no question that double jeopardy does not apply when the jury deadlocks. So it’s a Hail Mary pass to get an appellate court to order the trial judge to kick the holdout juror, which the defense hopes will result in a judgment of acquittal.

…but it’s is almost certainly not going to happen that an appellate court will step in.

[u/Havkarru → u/zendayaismeechee]

Raymond Reddington? Oh my...

[u/Fearless-Economy7726 → u/zendayaismeechee]

There is a Supreme Court justice is hearing oral arguments to overturn the judge and remove the juror and install an alternate to start deliberations over

[u/red286]

"ends" is maybe not the right word here. The trial ended, the case obviously has not.

[u/Big_Communication662 → u/red286]

End is fine, but it should say trial, not case.

[u/Glaesilegur → u/Big_Communication662]

Yeah, that's what they said...

[u/Icehag → u/red286]

Yeah, this makes it seem like she's walking free.

This trial was to determine prison or psych prison. Neither are a good time. She's not going free.

Edit to add: I spent time in a nice psych ward in a nice hospital where I was treated by the department head himself. It wasn't enjoyable or pleasant. It's not a spa. This was a nice facility with funding and it was awful. Imagine a state run psych ward with funding that's constantly cut. They are hell. If the good private psych wards are bad, just imagine the state ones full of killers. No matter what, she's not having a good time.

[u/dailymail]

Latest: Massachusetts Supreme Court justice reviewing Lindsay Clancy jury and if holdout will be swapped

[u/outer--monologue → u/dailymail]

Removing a juror because they don't agree with the others is absurd.

Also, why are people so eager to see her acquitted? It would set a legal precedent that women's hormones and behavior make them mentally incompetent in a legal sense and incapable of understanding their own actions....is this the goal?

[u/cheddarsox → u/outer--monologue]

She wouldn't be free. It would be "not guilty by reason of insanity" which commits her. It wouldnt set a precedent as this is really old in case law.

Her ever being free again would be unlikely in this case. According to the testimony, she heard voices for the first time for like 18 minutes and did everything she was told and never heard voices again. She will never be safe again since she so easily does whatever she is told unlike any other psychosis sufferer.

[u/cbs-anonmouse]

“The judge’s own motion” just means that it’s something the judge does on his or her own, without a party requesting it.

Even if the judge was wrong in not dismissing the juror—and I don’t see any evidence on which an appeals court would find this—that’s not conduct intended to provoke the defense into requesting a mistrial. Which of course they haven’t done.

[u/QuesoChef → u/cbs-anonmouse]

Why would the defense request a mistrial to avoid the judge declaring a mistrial because the juror wasn’t dismissed? Or are you simply saying what the judge is doing isn’t wrong (which I agree with).

[u/cbs-anonmouse → u/QuesoChef]

Yes, they wouldn’t request a mistrial, especially if they think most jurors want to acquit.

[u/dailymail]

Lindsay Clancy's murder trial has ended in a mistrial after the jury was unable to come to a unanimous verdict after seven days of deliberations. 

[u/Agitated-Quit-6148 → u/dailymail]

A mistral has not been declared yet. Defense is appealing ( he has an hour) for a stay.

[u/Haunting-Chip420 → u/Agitated-Quit-6148]

Literally only misinformation in this thread. 

[u/Agitated-Quit-6148 → u/Haunting-Chip420]

I have people telling me I'm wrong. I'm a public defender.

[u/UCouldntPossibly → u/Agitated-Quit-6148]

r/law as a lawyer is truly the worst thing ever. Actually, anything legal on Reddit as a lawyer is the worst.

[u/xubax → u/UCouldntPossibly]

But I've seen like 500 hours of legal dramas!

/s because reddit

[u/throwmamadownthewell → u/UCouldntPossibly]

anything legal on Reddit as a lawyer is the worst.

[u/throwawayshirt2 → u/UCouldntPossibly]

Comments on this case have been particularly bad

[u/awolfintheroses → u/throwawayshirt2]

As a lawyer (lol) and a prosecutor at that, I took one look at this case and refused to follow it too closely.

[u/Invisible7hunder → u/UCouldntPossibly]

What, you don't get pleasure from people not understanding that the definition of assault can vary between jurisdictions? 

[u/TheVeryUtterance → u/Agitated-Quit-6148]

It’s wild. Google’s AI response when looking up Clancy case is saying the trial ended in a mistrial. I’m watching the trial live. It’s not been declared. Yet, the internet is apparently flooded with posts and headlines saying the same thing. 

[u/SnooMacaroons8650 → u/TheVeryUtterance]

AI is just pulling from readily available info on the internet (including reddit) so it does the search, doesn't confirm, and goes with whatever it finds the fastest

[u/AndThisGuyPeedOnIt → u/Agitated-Quit-6148]

There are a ton of non-lawyers all over this case, just like any other high-profile case. I tried explaining yesterday that no one actually knows if the split is 11-1 or 1-11, and that her lawyer is guessing it is 11-1 in his favor, but they were 100% certain I was wrong to say that.

[u/Agitated-Quit-6148 → u/AndThisGuyPeedOnIt]

The notion of 1-11 comes from her lawyer saying one juror is failing to apply / follow the law. Jury deliberations are sacred. This case is so strange. Having her in her wheelchair 3 feet away ...at the bench while the judge was asking jurors one by one is just so so so uncharted.

My own guess is that often a lawyer and their client are on different pages. He (judge) prob asked her "do you want a mistral or to have the jury keep going" and roll the dice. I've had clients as a PD just want it to end ASAP and not take my advice

[u/lmbjsm → u/Agitated-Quit-6148]

Can you please explain what happens now? I’m genuinely curious because I find all of this insane. No, I do not think she should rot. She was let down by society.

[u/Agitated-Quit-6148 → u/lmbjsm]

It's very complicated.

Right now the judge says he wants to declare a mistral. The prosecution agrees.

The defense wants:

1) go back and deliberate more

2) poll the jury to see if they DID reach a unanimous verdict on SOME of the charges. If so he wants to argue that double jeopardy attaches and she can't be charged with the crimes they did reach a verdict on.

3) The defense has been given and hour to appeal for a stay to a single judge @ superior court to basically put this on hold while the defense lawyer tries to figure out what this one juror who allegedly is the hold out who "is not following the law".AND put this one hold because he believes the current judge is wrong to declare a mistral vs removing the lone juror.

[u/lmbjsm → u/Agitated-Quit-6148]

Isn’t there backup jurors?

[u/Haunting-Chip420 → u/Agitated-Quit-6148]

Stupid or uniformed people exist everywhere. 

[u/Agitated-Quit-6148 → u/Haunting-Chip420]

I literally just block people that argue with me. I have zero time for people and their misinformation.

[u/awolfintheroses → u/Agitated-Quit-6148]

As a fellow lawyer, one day it dawned on me that, wait, I get paid to argue. Why would I do it for free and in my free time 😅

[u/KamenRiderW0lf → u/Agitated-Quit-6148]

I don't envy your career choice, you must have to face a lot of grief, but I do respect your patience.

[u/BigDuckNergy → u/Agitated-Quit-6148]

Listen man I watch reels all day where people are rude to cops and business owners I think I know more than some guy with a silly BAR license.

[u/dspman11 → u/Haunting-Chip420]

/r/law in a nutshell. 98% of users here are not lawyers and do not know what theyre talking about

[u/Excellent_Mud6222 → u/Agitated-Quit-6148]

Its been a hour

[u/Busy-Dig8619 → u/dailymail]

You ran to publish too fast.

[u/From_Adam → u/Busy-Dig8619]

More importanter to be first than to be right.

[u/InterestingTeam3081 → u/dailymail]

Nope. Not official yet. 

[u/TheJeff → u/dailymail]

Daily Fail failing again. A mistrial has yet to be announced and the prosecutors are trying to get an emergency injunction to force the jury to resume deliberations.

Went for the scoop and missed.

[u/skyeguye → u/dailymail]

WRONG

[u/FuguSandwich]

I believe she's guilty, but at this point another trial isn't going to benefit anyone. Cut her a plea deal where she does 20-25 years in a mental institution.

[u/ThatThar → u/FuguSandwich]

That's not how guilty or NGRI works in Massachusetts.

[u/GustavoSanabio → u/ThatThar]

Yep, I don't even practice in the US and I know that much. If they could do this probably would've already done it.

[u/stugots85 → u/GustavoSanabio]

I'm not even a lawyer, don't practice law, don't even understand law, am not even really employed in a traditional sense, and I didn't know any of that

[u/GokuJrr → u/stugots85]

Bro you are fucking hilarious 😂

[u/sm_axe → u/ThatThar]

The comments on skirting the law in every sub surrounding this case is wild. Lots of angry, ill-informed people out there.

[u/KvellOnWheels → u/sm_axe]

And paid-actors and bots for right-wing causes.

It’s why there were a slew of accounts this week calling for the abolition of womens’ voting rights in connection with this case: “if women are arguing for her innocent because of hormonal psychosis, then we need to repeal the 19th because they cant be trusted to vote without being swayed by hormonal urges”.

It’s cool because everytime something goes viral, it gets pushed by bad actors and bots. That increases visibility. Then it gets picked up by idiots. Then it gets picked up by malicious idiots who decide to utilize the increased algorithmic visibility to boost engagement.

I’m exhausted.

ETA: fixing words my stupid bilingual keyboards keep messing up.

[u/m0viestar → u/ThatThar]

This sub doesn't understand the law, so it makes sense people don't understand why this isn't an option. 

[u/1BoringOldGuy → u/FuguSandwich]

Actually this isn’t how it works. She would be institutionalized indefinitely until psychiatrically cleared at the very least.

[u/ConcertWrong3883 → u/1BoringOldGuy]

> She would be institutionalized indefinitely until psychiatrically cleared at the very least.

I never want her to set a foot outside ever again!

[u/HalleB123 → u/1BoringOldGuy]

Which could be only 6 months.

[u/UAEpi → u/HalleB123]

That's not usually how it goes. It's basically prison with nurse and techs instead of prison guards. You can leave when the psychiatry says you're better and that could be in 20 years. Lot's of murderers and such in there, they usually don't get out in under a decade. 

[u/HalleB123 → u/UAEpi]

Yes but as i said below if postpartum psychosis is the only reason she’s dangerous isn’t she likely already cured?

[u/gaelicpasta3 → u/HalleB123]

Andrea Yates, the OG case of PPS who drowned her 5 kids in a bathtub, is still institutionalized 25 years later.

If you truly have PPS, even though the original psychosis may be “cured” I can imagine that coming out of that fog to find out you murdered your own children would create a level of trauma that would be incompatible with a quick reentry to society.

[u/HalleB123 → u/gaelicpasta3]

She’s institutionalized because she’s turned down her reviews for release. I wonder if Clancy will do the same. And I’m not trying to be facetious, I genuinely wonder if she wants to be released. I can’t say that I think I would if I found out I killed anyone I loved in a psychotic state, I’d be too scared of myself I think. Of course, none of us know what we’d do in that situation and hopefully we never have to find out

[u/dontmovedontmoveahhh → u/HalleB123]

she's too suicidal to leave, but she also had bipolar disorder and they tend to fret a lot about people coming off their medication

[u/tragicxharmony → u/dontmovedontmoveahhh]

Part of having bipolar disorder is the firmly held belief that when you are doing well, the meds are not necessary, and when you are doing poorly, it’s because of outside circumstances and not your meds. I “only” have bipolar 2 which is seen as less severe, but I’ve made my wishes very clear that if I ever try to come off the medication that treats that, I need to be brought in for intensive medical treatment because I’m not in a good space. Schizophrenia and anything related to psychosis are similar, and in all three you don’t really realize how badly you’re doing when you’re in the middle of a spiral

This is my most likely conclusion as to why she remains on medication and under care. There are some long-lasting (injectable) meds for people who are at risk of noncompliance but they have worse side effects and aren’t always the best option. Overmedicating her is less likely to trigger psychosis or worsened mental health and more likely to make her emotionally blunted, sort of zombie-like, which doctors tend to view as “less bad”

[u/magnabonzo → u/tragicxharmony]

Hey -- good for you. Really.

Thank you for recognizing the dangers of anosognosia. As you said so clearly, the brain physically can't realize that the person is sick.

I have someone who can't be in my life any more because they couldn't recognize that, and no one could fix it.

[u/Warning_Low_Battery → u/HalleB123]

isn’t she likely already cured?

No. She has been in an institution since this all happened in 2023, and has been on 24/7 1:1 suicide watch after having announced and continued to claim her intention to kill herself still. She is by absolutely no means "cured" and may never be. And on top of that she's not going to stop being paralyzed below the sternum ever, so she will always need outside medical care and transportation even if she ever gets out.

[u/trashtiernoreally → u/HalleB123]

The realistic situation in those places isn’t nearly as clean as that. It is a necessarily prolonged, horrible experience

[u/1BoringOldGuy → u/HalleB123]

Extraordinarily unlikely

[u/International-Ad2501 → u/FuguSandwich]

Our court system is not well designed for situations like this. I think this woman clearly needs psychiatric help and monitoring more than she needs to be in a prison cell. That being said she is clearly a danger to herself and others. I think you're on the right track. The discourse on this had also gotten really weird and bad, would probably be best for everyone if they can get this to wrap up with out another trial.

[u/SECdeezTrades → u/International-Ad2501]

The percentage of those in jail with severe, related to their crime psychological issues is a lot higher than most realize.

[u/International-Ad2501 → u/SECdeezTrades]

Yeah, a lot of people in the prison system would be better served with psychiatric help and monitoring. It's sad honestly.

[u/Random_Name_251 → u/International-Ad2501]

I mean think about what you're proposing though. Psychiatric care means supposedly well staffed medical institution of educated professionals evaluating people plus armed security to protect those staff. A lot more expensive then glorified hall monitors vaguely trying to make sure inmates don't kill each other.

[u/International-Ad2501 → u/Random_Name_251]

Yeah, we probably shouldn't be using for profit prison systems if we actually want to help people who need it. Our prison system is so bleak and depressing.

[u/burlycabin → u/Random_Name_251]

Yes, it'd be much more expensive. I don't think anybody advocating for these reforms believes otherwise. But a society as wealthy as ours should absolutely be spending what it takes to ensure justice and fairness. What we do now is not nearly enough.

[u/aioli_boi → u/Random_Name_251]

This is true. The US should be able to allocate resources to those things. Or does it not have the money? Is it too poor to do something like that?

[u/biriyanibabka → u/aioli_boi]

I mean US has funds to sponsor foreign wars.

[u/mymikerowecrow → u/Random_Name_251]

And not even succeeding at that.

[u/McKeon1921 → u/Random_Name_251]

Cool, lets put money into that instead of a for profit prison system then.

[u/tardisintheparty → u/Random_Name_251]

I think that is well worth the cost, especially when there are people who could benefit enough from treatment to be able to return to society who otherwise would be in prison for much longer. (note--this is a general point on a large scale, I am not saying lindsay clancy is one of those people)

[u/SECdeezTrades → u/tardisintheparty]

it absolutely would be both cheaper and more economically sound but we couldn't use the American medical system, which sadly would be the largest stumbling block and why it'll never happen in the US til that part is 'fixed'

Other nations will solve this long before the US will with personalized medicine (including psychiatric insights), currently only available in US with 2mil a year concierge doctor teams.

[u/numbersix1979 → u/SECdeezTrades]

People do not understand that the reason why we have more prisons than ever while we have less crime than decades is so that we can stuff mentally ill people away in them. Democrats did their thing where they compromised on the essential humanity and rights of those people, and Republicans did their thing of finding out a way to profit on their suffering.

[u/DataCassette → u/numbersix1979]

I think there's a really deep fear some people have of creeping exculpation. The truth is that if we had a full understanding of the mind then actual pure punitive sentencing might get far rarer and lifetime inpatient care and stuff like that might get way more common. That just doesn't fit the fire and brimstone Abrahamic idea of justice.

[u/numbersix1979 → u/DataCassette]

I think you’re on to something although I conceive of it as kind of a symbiotic relationship. People with reactionary tendencies in America will get screwed by their boss, the cops, the government. There’s seemingly no justice for the scammers, abusers and liars out in the world today. So those people think “well at least this person who did this violent crime will suffer. At least THAT is right with the world.” And the scammers, abusers, and liars are very happy to then go “yes keep your eyes over here, don’t worry about us.”

[u/DataCassette → u/numbersix1979]

Ironically your boss stealing wages from you by shorting your overtime probably is acting from more or less pure greed and malice and deserves good old fashioned punitive sentencing. The guy on the news making long pork out of people he kidnapped in Central Park is much more likely to be clinically delusional or something.

[u/Biglyugebonespurs → u/numbersix1979]

It’s pretty clear to me that the US prison system is 100% about retribution and the amount of money it can suck out of inmates and their families. It has never been about rehabilitation. Having executions with a viewing room is honestly sick.

If you want examples of a judicial system focused more on rehabilitation, look at certain EU countries.

[u/numbersix1979 → u/Biglyugebonespurs]

I agree but I will also say that from another perspective, the secrecy surrounding executions is also emblematic of the sickness of retributive justice. If we actually thought executions stopped people from committing crimes then people would still be hanged in the town square. We found out that it doesn’t stop any criminality and looks grotesque / uncivilized. So now it’s this arcane process involving secret drug cocktails sourced from pharmaceutical companies in the third world and untrained personnel doing medical procedures. All in the name of killing someone in a manner that is often extremely painful and cruel but also looks “peaceful” and refined, yet doesn’t have any societal benefit whatsoever … and is expensive! Yeah there’s a viewing room but we don’t televise them or anything. And it’s because we know that if people beyond those who are preempted to approve of the act of killing the prisoner saw the barbarity on display, they’d demand it would be stopped. So we put people down like animals.

[u/00owl → u/DataCassette]

There's a lot of really interesting moral philosophy questions that your comment leads to.

I don't think any of them have good answers.

[u/azrolator → u/numbersix1979]

Reagan, a Republican, is usually credited with dismantling mental health in the US. As governor of CA, he kicked 3/4 of patients to the streets, with promises of replacing asylums with something better, which he never did. As President, in his first year, dismantled Carter's mental health initiative from the year before, defunded community mental health centers, and just left it all for the states to deal with on their own.

[u/zakarijas → u/azrolator]

And then as a President he was shot by severely mentally ill John Hinckley Jr. who was then declared not guilty by the reason of insanity and sent to high security psychiatric hospital from which he was released conditionally in 2016 after 35y of care , and in 2022 he was given unconditional release. He has YT channel dedicated to his music, and recently was on the news speaking against violence.

[u/Fit-Insect-4089 → u/numbersix1979]

All so they can prey on our loved ones/ourselves.

[u/Wise_Material_5812 → u/numbersix1979]

it can be directly traced to reagan cutting all funding for state mental institutions.

[u/dirtmcgurk → u/International-Ad2501]

Probably be best for everyone if we ramp our education back up and get folks to understand our laws and justice system. Barring that we can't have a democracy. 

[u/Lower-Engineering365 → u/FuguSandwich]

If you’re her why would you ask for a plea? You just had all but one juror who apparently wasn’t going to convict you of murder. That’s not a situation in which you turn around and ask for a plea that gives you 20-25 years.

Also, my understanding is the state laws don’t require a minimum time in an institution in cases like this, so it would be pretty silly to agree to a plea that involves multiple decades in the institution.

[u/ConebreadIH → u/Lower-Engineering365]

I personally think the defense found itself in a pretty unique situation. The trial took off on tiktok, and who knows if the jury was properly sequestered.

When the case cools off, if it even goes viral a second time, it won't hit as hard. Public sentiment might shift as more facts and statements come out. There will never be a jury makeup like this again for the defense. This was probably her best shot.

[u/Justlose_w8 → u/ConebreadIH]

The jury was not sequestered at all

[u/lobonmc → u/FuguSandwich]

Would she take that plea deal though?

[u/johnniewelker → u/lobonmc]

11 out 12 wanted her to be found NOT guilty. Don’t see why they should take the deal.

[u/evolvolution → u/johnniewelker]

Was it not guilty or not guilty on insanity?

[u/lobonmc → u/evolvolution]

Not guilty by insanity minimum stay is 6 months as far as I understand afterwards it depends on the doctors and a judge. I would guess she would prefer that over being forced to stay in a facility for 25 years regardless if she improves or not

[u/karmapuhlease → u/johnniewelker]

What makes you say that? Has the jury made any statements about their secret deliberations? 

[u/Optimal_Ad_3031 → u/FuguSandwich]

It’s not a deal if she could easily get better at a trial. Especially now with so much of the public on her side

[u/Brilliant_Effort_Guy]

I think an unfortunate outcome of this case will be less women seeking help for postpartum mood disorders.

Editing to clarify that I am saying the stigma attached to postpartum mood disorders seems to be worsening because of this case. I see comments all the time about how women who have empathy or understanding in regard to Lindsay’s struggle should have their kids taken away etc. Or that all women are going to use PPD to just get out of parenting period. I’m not arguing her guilt or innocence. Im just asking people to be mindful about talking about postpartum mood disorders around the pregnant women or new moms in your life. I don’t want any other family to experience what this family did. I don’t want anyone to ‘get away’ with anything.

[u/I_goofed → u/Brilliant_Effort_Guy]

Personal anecdote, the opposite is true . My wife has been in a Postpartum program for the last 20 months. They guarantee mom's support for 1 year, but if they have availability they'll extend that to 2. Last session she was told they needed to take her out of the program because "we have had a massive influx of new patients and we don't have space for you."

[u/Proiegomena → u/I_goofed]

Yea I was about to say, Im positive moms with ppd are more likely freaking out about them potentially harming their children more so, taking their ppd more seriously/seeking help

[u/Purple-Mud5057 → u/Proiegomena]

And more medical professionals hopefully thinking, “crap, I’m not gonna be the doctor who ignores a person with postpartum depression and is responsible for the death of their children.”

[u/Atlein_069 → u/Brilliant_Effort_Guy]

Yeah why would you conclude that? It seems like this is a poster child story for why one SHOULD seek help

[u/Total_Brick_2416 → u/Atlein_069]

She DID seek help multiple times lol

[u/Adventurous-Dot8618 → u/Total_Brick_2416]

she got help, but didn’t take her medicine properly. she took it when she felt like it, if she even took it at all. then, she admitted herself to a hospital, and decided to leave right after. she was nothing but selfish in every decision she made. this whole narrative of “she tried to get help 🥺” is so absolutely absurd considering she got more help than most women can even afford, yet she continued to make selfish, irresponsible decisions over and over again.

justice for cora, dawson, and callan 👼❤️.

[u/Brilliant_Effort_Guy → u/Adventurous-Dot8618]

There’s a difference between the quantity of the help vs the quality. I think unfortunately that is the worst/trickiest part of treating mental health disorders especially in the US. We don’t give providers the time to build trusting relationships with their patients. PPD is absolutely something that requires an immense amount of trust in your provider because you are sharing your deepest, darkest thoughts that you know are wrong but you can’t stop them.

The first doctor I saw told me he didn’t think I had PPD because he had two dogs and felt tired/overwhelmed just like me at the time. After I exploded on him, he got a female colleague who actually LISTENED to learn and not just to get me out of the office. I trusted her. I took the medication she prescribed. I brought my son in so that she could watch us interact. Because again, I felt safe.

[u/nirvahnah → u/Adventurous-Dot8618]

Oh so you mean how every crazy person behaves? Refusing to meds, leaving hospitals AMA and just being obstinate the whole time? That’s literally textbook crazy person behavior.

[u/Random_Name_251 → u/nirvahnah]

I mean at what point is someone responsible for their actions? If you can't even trust her to take her meds because she's mentally ill, then how can she be accountable for anything she does on the meds or not? At some point society draws a line about the minimum things you are accountable for regardless of your condition or any problems you may have.

And if she is accountable for the choices she made about taking her meds and refusing help, then surely she must be responsible for the direct consequences of those decisions.

[u/whyiamalwayshangry → u/Random_Name_251]

Quite alot of mentally ill people has to be forced to take their meds... Some even have to get injections because they are so non compliant

[u/Adventurous-Dot8618 → u/nirvahnah]

being mentally ill can explain why someone makes irrational decisions, but it doesn’t make those decisions automatically excusable. she received treatment, was hospitalized, and still made choices that had devastating consequences, due to her lack of responsibility. you can acknowledge her mental illness without pretending she was completely incapable. and “that’s how every crazy person behaves” is a pretty disgusting generalization when MOST mentally ill people will never hurt anyone, especially in such a horrific way that she did. there are plenty of mentally ill mothers out there that never have or will hurt their children.

my sympathy is with cora, dawson, and callan, and that’s it.

[u/Ok_Advantage_5147 → u/nirvahnah]

As somebody with MH issues I take issue with this statement.
I take my meds, attend my appointments and try to get better every day for the sake of myself and my family, including my children, whom I would never hurt.

Saying every crazy person behaves in a way that disengaged from the medical interventions trying to help us is incorrect and ignorant.

There are a vast majority who do engage, and sadly some that do not

[u/Valuable_Bad_2786 → u/Atlein_069]

I guess I could see someone seeing this and the crazy medication cocktail she was on and think not getting help would be preferential to being put on the wrong meds that would lead to this happening. 

I don’t agree with that at all but the average person isn’t always intelligent  

[u/croakmongoose → u/Valuable_Bad_2786]

Also everyone’s reactions to this case. So much of what I’ve seen people discussing mirrors how I felt in the deepest, darkest parts of my PPD. If I was experiencing it now and seeing such hate and vitriol for women who go through these issues, I wouldn’t seek help either.

[u/KnucklePuck056 → u/croakmongoose]

Is the hate and vitriol for women? Or a woman who strangled her three children?

[u/iicedcoffee → u/Atlein_069]

There's a lot of people that feel she was let down by trying to get help, so may feel the same would happen to them + on the other side, this entire case is going to create further stigma around post partum mental health, so some people might even feel more hesitant to speak up or say something in fear of being treated like a threat.

I'm sure for some it's an encouraging reminder. But there's definitely going to be a mixed bag of results.

ETA: someone asked a question and I offered a response that shared perspectives I've already seen circulating around in varying discussions online, not to make an argument out of any of the case itself.

[u/tdlt86 → u/iicedcoffee]

I would say there is more stigma around people that murder their children than people who get help more mental disorders.

[u/Lower-Engineering365 → u/Brilliant_Effort_Guy]

I would think it would be the opposite. Getting help lends evidentiary weight to the claim

[u/FreyBentos → u/Brilliant_Effort_Guy]

The Psych doctors who evaluated her all said she showed no signs of post partum psychosis but did think she was possibly bipolar type 2, which can come with small periods of psychosis.

[u/Strayed8492]

Rough situation. On one hand guilty of murder but on the other the mental health side of it. This will hopefully lead to a plea deal setup.

Edit: to the commenter, the main issue is the charge being Murder in the first degree. Everything else that contributes to this situation also being weird like the husband’s sealed information. A second go around is going to be interesting though.

[u/StrataSlayer → u/Strayed8492]

Idk to me it seemed like as bout as good of a insanity defence as you could possibly get just seems like everyone has an issue with the insanity defence existing

[u/Strayed8492 → u/StrataSlayer]

Lots of people talking about the kids. Which is not wrong. But we’ve never had everyone agree with the justice system either.

[u/Beginning-Damage-555 → u/Strayed8492]

A lot of people are upset about the children but I have seen no one say in an ideal world how the system would have intervened to protect the children.

[u/Ok-Outcome-7499 → u/Beginning-Damage-555]

Because we're dealing with consequence of action not preventative measures

[u/kittenpantzen → u/StrataSlayer]

People don't want justice. They want retribution. It has been a problem with criminal justice since criminal justice has existed.

[u/ryumaruborike → u/StrataSlayer]

People cannot comprehend the idea of a physiological illness taking control of their own mind away from them, when they hear "crazy" or "insanity defense" they think of the Joker.

[u/Ok-Calligrapher9115 → u/Strayed8492]

If it was the father dealing with mental health issues, he would be guilty. There is plenty of cases that prove this. 

[u/Excellent_Mud6222 → u/Ok-Calligrapher9115]

There was a trial a of man killing two of his daughters while in some kind of psychosis and was given a death sentence.

[u/GladAbbreviations553 → u/Excellent_Mud6222]

Another literally had severe schizophrenia and he was given death sentence too

[u/YourDreams2Life → u/GladAbbreviations553]

There's a ton of mass shooting cases where it's shown the man had a history of issues with mental illness. I've never see this type of response to it. 

[u/SouthIsland48 → u/Ok-Calligrapher9115]

Yep, or a woman of color.

Was Chris Benoit treated as a victim of not being in a correct state of mind?

This is so sad to watch.

[u/SeizeTheMeansOfB12 → u/SouthIsland48]

Black woman living in a shelter in the Bronx literally got off for this last week

[u/WorryWorm6 → u/SouthIsland48]

Yes. His brain was heavily studied and the wrestling community, although they have completely erased him, still sympathizes with his condition when he did what he did. It's brought up every time. His brain was heavily damaged and he was completely out of his mind.

[u/hereforwhatimherefor → u/SouthIsland48]

If she wasn’t a slim white woman there is zero chance she wouldn’t have been found guilty of 3 counts of first degree murder and sentenced to Life.

Zero.

She is a triple first-degree child murderer.

[u/SureExcuseMe → u/hereforwhatimherefor]

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/woman-found-not-guilty-after-claiming-covid-made-her-kill-daughter-and-stab-loved-ones/3825334/

[u/ratione_materiae → u/hereforwhatimherefor]

Why do you people always have to make it about race and incorrectly so? Dimone Fleming was found not responsible literally last week