Lindsay Clancy: Drama in the Deliberation Room

of suicide and the killing of children, so please listen or watch with care, we'll also

have resources at the end of the episode. If we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of the juror that has just spurned the instructions of this quote, it's a shame, it's a real shame, and that's why I object to the quotes, rolling, I request that we have further inquiry, I request that we, my motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction

and reasonable doubt.

“I think what your honor has done by asking each juror if they're able to follow the law and”

then giving a general instruction on reasonable doubt is appropriate and under calm off versus Ralph, so we do not have an objection to the questions or the re-instruction. Drama in the deliberation room has thrown a wrench into the Lindsey-clancy trial this week. The jury was deadlocked twice since deliberations began last Thursday on August 27.

Now, you just heard from Defense Attorney Kevin Reddington requesting that a juror be removed from the deliberations because he believes this member of the jury refuses to listen to the judge's instructions on reasonable doubt. The judge had called jurors to the stand one by one to give these instructions on reasonable doubt and the prosecution stated that they have no issue with the jurors' instructions.

Lindsey-clancy of course is the Dexbury Massachusetts mother on trial for the killing of her three young children, five-year-old Korra, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Carolyn. As a reminder, Lindsey is paralyzed from the waist down as a result of jumping

from her second story window after alleged suicide attempt that night.

There is no question as to whether Lindsey killed her children, but what the jury must decide is whether she should be held criminally responsible. The Defense argued that she experienced undiagnosed postpartum psychosis that took away her ability to control her actions, and therefore, should be found not criminally responsible. Now they also argued that her condition was exacerbated by the 13 psychiatric medications

she had been prescribed. I'm 48-hour's correspondent Natalie Morales, and this is Case By Case. We have been following this case closely for over a month now, and for our continuing coverage, you can check the Case By Case feed wherever you find your podcasts. You can also watch episodes of Case By Case on the 48-hour's YouTube channel, or by

searching Case By Case, on Paramount Plus. Returning this week is Christina Rex, reporter and anchor for WBZ TV in Boston. Thank you so much, Christina, for being with us again today, and I know you've been covering

“the Clancy Case since the night of the killings, right?”

Yeah, Natalie. Thanks for having me again. I have been covering this since the night of the killings. I was actually there at the crime scene the night this happened, and then I've covered the trial every step of the way since.

Yes, and in fact, you were inside the courtroom for that stunning moment with the jurors. Can you tell me a little bit more about what you saw there? It was really intense, and part of the reason it was so intense was because so much of this happened at Sidebar before it was in open court. So all of the media were called into the room.

And there's dozens of members of the media at this point. The general public was called in and there was still a line out the door that wasn't able to get into the room. And of course, Lindsey Clancy's parents and her family were there as well. And the judge called the attorneys and each individual, deliberating juror, up to Sidebar

and questioned them one by one with Lindsey Clancy sitting there at Sidebar as well before anything happened in open court. So that's part of the reason that that moment was just so intense. Because really, nobody knew what was going on, except that it was clearly a juror issue, since there'd be being questioned individually.

Yeah, and I wonder how this could affect the rest of the deliberation process as we can as it continues on. There's really three different options that could happen now. Either the jury could continue its deliberations and reach a unanimous verdict, which of course is the goal of a trial, or there could be a mistrial as a result of a hungry or this particular

juror issue, or if Lindsey Clancy's defense attorney gets his way, he wants one juror

removed and an alternate juror put in their place so that deliberations can basically go

back to square one. And if an alternate juror were to be called, the alternate juror has been sitting in

“the courtroom listening to the trial throughout, right?”

Yes, listen to the whole trial, but then was separated from the deliberating jury during

And what about Lindsey's reactions, her family, what are you seeing there at the table? When this happened, you couldn't see much reaction from Lindsey's family, but Lindsey's reaction was obvious. She appeared to start crying. You could see her shoulders shaking from behind and then her lawyer Kevin Readington leaned

over and put his right arm around her and started rubbing her shoulder to comfort her. That moment, court closed and we're all ordered out of the courtroom, but she was clearly emotional. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be a juror deliberating on this case, especially with all of the attention it's getting, all of the emotion that I'm sure everybody's

experiencing, but even so the judge has called this jury one of the most diligent he's ever seen. I want to play a little bit of what he told them there.

“Please have confidence in what you're about to do, all right?”

I have that confidence in you. I don't think I've ever seen a more dedicated group of jurors in any trial that I've ever been involved in. You're all people of intelligence and common sense collectively.

You're bringing a truly powerful force to determine the truth of the matters in this case.

And I, as I said, have great confidence with this case in your hands. You're honest, thoughtful and fair, and be that as you took the oath to be, I am completely confident. They'll be able to arrive at it just for whatever that verdict may be. So what makes this jury in your mind stand out, Christina?

I'll start with the fact that they stood the test of time. Eight teenagers were selected for this trial in the event somebody needed to drop out because remember only 12 deliberate, but all 18 stayed for the entire duration of this case. In addition to that, I think the judge was referring to how thorough the jury has been when it comes to looking at all of this evidence.

I mean, we know that early deliberations, they asked to see the knife that Lindsay used to harm herself on the night of those killings, as well as her pill bottles. So that and all the time that they're taking so far to deliberate suggests that they didn't take their role as jurors lightly in this case. To me, it really seems like these people understand the gravity and the seriousness of the

job they have here. Absolutely.

“And I think, I mean, you could pretty much see a lot of emotion on their faces at various”

times. And I imagine even as the deliberation process continues, are you seeing, I've heard them physically describe as looking exhausted, would you agree? I would say in particular, throughout deliberations, I've noticed that over the course of the trial, they were focused and attentive and certainly emotional when the most emotional

testimony happened, or the most emotional evidence was played. But over the last, you know, week or so deliberations, I've really started to notice that they looked tired. On the morning of Tuesday, September 1st, the judge announced that the jury was deadlocked. And then unable to come to a unanimous decision on the verdict, then the judge asked

and returned his deliberation. And on Wednesday, again, the jury came back deadlocked again.

So if the jury cannot come to a decision for the third time, then the trial will be declared

a mistrial, right, Christina? Unfortunately, yes.

“So when the jury was deadlocked for the second time on Wednesday, the judge read what's”

called in Massachusetts, it's called a two-y Rodriguez charge, generically, it's known as a dynamite charge or instruction, and it's basically the judge telling jurors to continue deliberating to make sure their positions are in line with their own conscience. So the language of the instruction also tells jurors that they are in the best position to decide this case, and that there's no reason they should believe that any future

jury would be more impartial or competent or capable than they are. With that said, this charge has been criticized by some legal experts for pressuring juries to possibly change their opinions. A local example was another case I recently covered in Massachusetts, that's the Karen Read trial.

Karen Read was a Massachusetts woman accused of killing her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe.

Now, in 2024, at her first trial, the jury could not come to unanimous decision after being

deadlocked twice. On the third time, they reported being deadlocked, the judge declared a mistrial. At case when to trial, again, a retrial in 2025, and there, Karen Read was acquitted of secondary murder and manslaughter, and instead, she was convicted of the lesser charge of driving under the influence of alcohol.

So if we were to see a scenario where the mistrial a mistrial is declared, what would that mean for Lindsay Clancy? So ultimately, whether or not Lindsay Clancy is retried, meaning does she have a second trial, do this all over again? That's up to the Plymouth County District Attorney.

That's Timothy Cruz here in Plymouth County. He's the head of the prosecutions office.

And at the time, he would get to decide to weather to drop the charges to negotiate a plea deal or just schedule a brand new trial on the same charges with a brand new jury. In the meantime, though, if a mistrial is declared, Lindsay will remain in the state-run mental facility where she lives right now, where she's technically in custody, where she's

been for the last three years, as she awaits her second trial.

Well, I could only imagine that her attorney is trying to prevent that scenario from happening because what that would do to her to put her through another trial of this magnitude that was so emotional as it was, not to mention the witnesses. Yes. So many family members of these children who had to testify.

Absolutely. It's just horrific to have to do that twice when can only imagine. So initially, there were four charges for the jurors to choose from for the verdict. It was first degree, second degree murder, a not guilty or not guilty by reason of mental

“disease or defect or insanity, I think, is what most people refer to that.”

Now the judge introduced an additional option, though, just ahead of the deliberations. He added the manslaughter charge.

Now this is most of you know, as a lesser charge than the first and second degree murder

charge, it's considered to be a killing done unintentionally in a reckless or negligent manner. So Christina, do you think that additional option could have made this deliberation process even that more complicated? There's certainly a chance. We can't say for sure, but throwing in an additional charge does give the jurors more work

to do. Actually, many legal experts who I've spoken to over the course of this trial, they're worried that that manslaughter charge could result in a compromised verdict, and that jurors could potentially see it as a way to punish Lindsay Clancy for the deaths without actually convicting

her of first degree murder.

And the same legal experts I speak to say, the actions of that night here don't actually fit the definition of manslaughter. All right, let's talk about the makeup of the jury because I find this so interesting. It's really stuck out to me that the deliberating jury is made up of nine women and three men.

So I can imagine that in a case like this that has brought up so many questions about maternal mental health, having a jury that has comprised mostly of women, I would think that would be significant. What about you, Christina?

“Anything about the juror demographics that stands out to you?”

Yeah, I mean, it's hard to ignore the fact that there's nine women and three men here. That's really an uneven split, far more women on the story than there are men. Some of the women appear to be significantly older than Lindsay, there are quite a few women who I would expect are more than 60 years old on this jury. Also a number of women, I would say 40s and up, and I would think just statistically speaking,

some of these women must be mothers or grandmothers, you know, nine women on a jury. I can only imagine that's right. And then I'm going to go back and talk about the closing arguments for a second because this was the last thing that the jurors heard from the prosecution and the defense before heading into deliberations.

And I can't help but wonder how that might have played into some of the conflict that we're seeing amongst the jurors. Now to me, defense attorney Kevin Reddington seemed almost theatrical during his closing statement. I want to play some of that here for you.

You can see the Facebook postings. You can see what she indicates about, for example, I just randomly grabbed this one. A son, my prince, that they went ahead and he'd think she'd killed him first, truly because she didn't like him, that is repulsive. From, I don't have to go through all of them, the extent of the injuries to sliding her

throat, to slashing her wrists, throwing herself out a window, let her hold the bed and

“walk window open, screen slashed, oh, screen wasn't slashed, that's what she thought, it's called”

"Intolusion." I mean, he was so animated there, almost seemingly a little emotional too in re-telling the

I think it goes to show that Reddington, he's not afraid to be confrontational with witnesses

and the prosecution, it also seems to me like he's aware of the optics here that the prosecution had to prove that a mother wanted to kill her children, wanted being the operative word. I don't think that's an easy argument to make without seeming harsh or insensitive and Reddington's tactic seems to be, I would say, to maybe exploit that challenge.

I think you're right, and you're right that he was theatrical, he moved all over the room over the course of his closing, at one point he even directed his statements that the prosecutors directly and was encouraged by the judge to go look at the jury instead.

“And I remember that you and I had talked about this in your first episode on the Clancy”

case, so Kevin Reddington is a self-described old-school lawyer here in Massachusetts. He's been doing this for over 50 years, he's not afraid to kind of put on a show like

you saw in that closing and build a rapport with the jury.

I think this has kind of translated to his perception, his public perception, even outside the courtroom. And you know, the optics of this case and the harshness of it is something that I really sensed the prosecution battling with throughout this trial that really culminated in their closing argument.

Yeah, and we actually do have some of that. I want to play it here, here is prosecutor Jennifer Spray. There's no dispute. That Lindsey Clancy was suffering from mental illness and that she tried to kill herself. There's no dispute about that.

All of the evidence that you've heard, even the experts that the criminal will put before

you, say that she was suffering with a mental illness and she tried to kill herself.

That's not the issue in this trial. The issue is whether, at the time, she killed Cora, Dawson and County. She knew the difference between right and wrong and whether she could conform her behavior to the requirements of the law. In this case is not about our mental health system or how it treats women or what's in

the DSM-5 and what's not. That's a distraction to get you angry and passionate about an important issue, but an issue that's not on trial here. Yeah, so the prosecution really clearly states fair in their closing that Lindsey struggled with mental illness.

They acknowledge that and not only that she struggled, but they kind of offered sympathy for those struggles and they acknowledge that mental health issues are very real. That was a really different tone from their opening statement in this case. But in direct contrast to Kevin Redington's closing, sprayed calls these conversations around mental health a distraction in this case.

And I would say her tactic there kind of took the heat off of the mental health providers and instead put the focus back on Lindsey here. I do have to agree.

“I mean, I think they're closing argument does make me wonder what kind of feedback they”

might have gotten on their approach. And I do think Buckingham and Spray seemed to be striking a little bit more of a softer tone than I've seen from them before. I'd like to go back and just play some of their opening statements here for comparison. Here's prosecutor Shannon Buckingham delivering the prosecutions opening remarks over

a month ago. In her personal life, in her nursing career, she was someone who liked to control every little detail of her life, of her family's life. In contrast to the pictures you'll see of the doting mother, the dedicated nurse, you'll also see a side of Lindsey Clancy that's different.

Somebody extremely controlling, meticulous, and manipulative. It was hard. It was hard for her to maintain that control. It was hard for her to bond with her kids. And in efforts to maintain control, she would tell information from her husband, from

her doctors, she reported serious symptoms that were inconsistent with her daily activities.

“And she chose to deal with her mental health issues in the worst way.”

She chose to manipulate her providers, seek out the quick and easy fix when she was failing to press an anxious. And when she didn't get what she expected, she chose an alternate route. She's got a different doctor. She changed medications after days.

She disengaged the treatment when she didn't like the plan. Yeah, that manipulation angle is something we saw Kevin Reddington really call out in his closing argument. But by contrast, the prosecution was careful not to bring it up in their closing argument. And they make it very clear now that they acknowledge Lindsey's mental illness.

And this kind of makes me think that the prosecution may be learned that they needed to back off. Now for those who have listened or watched our last episode, there were hundreds of Lindsey Clancy supporters outside of the courtroom last week, considering that intense public

The judge actually swore in and questioned each juror individually before starting the day.

“And the judge actually did that again this week, right, Christina?”

What was the point of doing that? Yes, another interruption and deliberations here. So on Tuesday of this week, a woman was arrested for recording people coming out of the courthouse. So state police say they actually found videos in her recently deleted photos album on

her phone. And they said those videos showed a number of people coming out of the courthouse allegedly including jurors in this case. And when questioned, she allegedly said she was just waiting to see if Lindsey Clancy would come out of the building.

And Wednesday, the judge against war in and questioned each juror individually including the alternates. So that woman who's arrested, she's been identified as Dawn Light. She's a 56 year old woman from Sutton, Massachusetts. That's about 90 minutes from Plymouth.

She was arrested, taken into custody.

“She's facing charges of aggravated intimidation of a juror, witness, police or”

court official. And she pleaded not guilty at her arrangement to those charges.

And here's what's really interesting about this woman.

One calls herself a crime junkie. And she's been present at many high profile trials, including the Karen Retrial that we mentioned earlier. She actually saw me outside of the courthouse on Tuesday in a crowd of reporters. And she stopped and said, I know you.

So I assume she must have recognized me from the Karen Reed coverage as well. And I can only imagine that the charges that she's facing are pretty serious if juror intimidation is actually found in this case. Correct. Very serious.

Of course, you know, I do keep thinking about the lasting impact that this trial is going to have on all of us. I mean, from those watching at home to those who might even be dealing with postpartum difficulties themselves, you know, I can't help but feel that this case has really expanded the way we talk about and hopefully even treat postpartum mental health.

I know that it has captured the world's attention. And I feel like it's really educated so many on maternal mental health, which really is at the crux of this case.

So in our earlier coverage, when we spoke in our first episode about this case, we also

talked about the Andrea Yates case. Now for those who don't remember, Yates was the Houston, Texas woman who pleaded not guilty to drowning all five of her children in the bathtub back in 2001. She was found not guilty by a reason of insanity and she remains in a mental health facility to this day 25 years ago, that case was the one that introduced the conversation that child

birth can really affect someone's mental health.

“And now I think that the Clancy trial has really built on that conversation really getting”

into the nuance of maternal mental health. Yeah, I agree with you. And this case, it also reminds me of an eerily similar one in Ireland actually. I mean, down to the day. So three years before the Clancy killings, this is on January 24th, 2020, Deirdre Morley killed

her three young children ages nine, seven, and three in Newcastle, Ireland that took place. And they even shared similar professions. Lindsey Clancy was a labor and delivery nurse and Deirdre was a pediatric nurse. So during her trial, the court heard evidence that Morley suffered from severe psychotic depressive illness, and two years before she killed her children, she told her psychiatrist

that she thought she had damaged them because of her own mental health issues. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Just so heartbreaking. And as you said, it is eerie because it was so close to what we're hearing and close to the day.

As a reminder, I just want to say postpartum psychosis is rare. It's estimated to affect one to two per one thousand women, but postpartum depression, of course far more common, it affects about 100 to 140 out of a thousand women. And you know, postpartum psychosis is actually not even listed as a distinct diagnosis in the DSM5, so that's the handbook that mental health providers use to diagnose patients.

So one thing I am grateful for following this case is the spotlight that it's put on postpartum symptoms so that maybe mothers who have followed this or aware of it can be more aware of what to look out for, and also so that doctors can recognize the warning signs before it reaches a point of crisis. Absolutely.

Well, Christina Rex, you are always terrific.

Thank you for all the hard work you've been doing on this case. Really appreciate you joining us and for your continued insights in the case. Thank you so much for having me. We do want to take this moment to say that if you or someone you know may be experiencing a mental health crisis, contact the 988 suicide and crisis lifeline, just call or text 988.

And if you're pregnant or have just had a baby, you can dial or text the national maternal mental health hotline at 1-833-TLC-Mama.

Be sure to rate and review.

“Let us know which cases you're following and which cases you would like us to follow.”

Now, streaming on Paramount Plus.

Everyone be ready. Both we go.

One step closer to where it all began.

“What we are about to do and not be taken back.”

Star Trek Strange New Worlds. New season now streaming on Paramount Plus.