Wow, this has to be incredibly frustrating for Lindsay Clancy and her attorney, Kevin Reddington.
Clancy, who was on the trial for the deaths of her three children, was either going to leave that courtroom as a convicted murderer if she had been found guilty, or she was going to go to a high-security state psychiatric hospital if the jury found her not guilty by reason of insanity.
To vote guilty, each juror had to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she intentionally killed her three kids with sound mind and was not experiencing a psychotic break. To vote not guilty by reason of insanity, the jury had to agree there was reasonable doubt and be convinced that Clancy’s actions were the result of psychosis.
But now? Now everyone is essentially back at square one.
Related: Lindsay’s Attorney Wants Trump’s Help
Followers of the controversial case know the jury — nine women and three men — deliberated for seven days without reaching a unanimous verdict. At one point the jury foreperson wrote the judge a note informing him they were deadlocked 11-1, and there was one member of the jury who was allegedly not following the court’s instructions regarding the law on reasonable doubt.
The judge responded by reminding the jury of the instructions. Clancy’s attorney requested the holdout be removed, but the judge decided the juror could remain. Ultimately, that lone juror held out long enough and a mistrial was declared. That means Clancy could be facing a whole new trial with a whole new jury.
So what happened? Why did it turn out this way?
Her defense argued that although she did not deny killing her young children, she could not be held criminally responsible as she was suffering from postpartum psychosis. And now we know the majority of the jury sided with the defense and was ready to find her not guilty by reason of insanity.
Related: Lindsay’s Ex-Husband Patrick Threatens Legal Action Against Conspiracy Theorists
On Tuesday, three jurors, including the foreperson, spoke to NBC10 Boston about their experience. According to the foreperson, the lone juror DID admit having reasonable doubt but still refused to vote with the rest of the jury:
“He had reasonable doubt. After we watched that video of the interview, I believe that’s when it was, he admitted he had reasonable doubt. There were three forms I had to fill out and I started filling them out, I wrote my signature on each one but then he said, ‘But I’m still not going to say she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.’”
Watch for yourself:
Another juror described him as “very arrogant” and claimed he “really did not take anything that anybody said,” when he continued asking questions, alleging “he just completely disregarded the information that they gave him.”
“Every one of us in the hours of our frustration would get up and walk the room because you just couldn’t sit anymore. And we would all go to the cart with the exhibits. He, I think, got up to the cart once very briefly and went back to his seat. He would not interact with us and try to understand. We read to him, on numerous occasions, the definition of reasonable doubt from Judge [William] Sullivan’s instruction. But he had the hardest time getting over the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.”
The internet remains divided, too. One side believes she’s completely guilty. The other side is urging society to better understand postpartum psychosis and the way the healthcare system can often fail women. Both sides want justice, but they have different ideas about how it should be served.
As for next steps, Clancy’s attorney hopes he can work with the prosecution to reach some kind of deal that both sides will be satisfied with. We’ll have to wait and see.
Thoughts about all this? Let us know in the comments.
To learn more about postpartum depression and psychosis, CLICK HERE.
[Image via YouTube/Law & Crime TV.]
