Lindsay Clancy Jurors Speak and Defense Attorney’s Media Blitz, with Anne Emerson

I'm joined today by my co-host Ashley Merchant former Florida law woman now in Atlanta, GA criminal looks defensive attorney extraordinaire. Hello, Ashley.

Hey Dave, I hope you're doing well. Let's talk about what we've got on the docket today. Lots of Lindsey Clancy. So late last week Lindsey Clancy, her case ended in a mistrial and now her defense attorney Kevin Rettington is speaking out saying that he wants the case dismissed on double jeopardy grounds. We'll explain and bring you the latest. And later in the show and Emerson senior investigative reporter and host of criminally obsessed joins us to discuss what the Lindsey Clancy jurors are now revealing.

“But first, Ashley, what are your thoughts on the judge declaring a mistrial?”

I was so frustrated Dave. I really just felt Kevin Rettington's frustration and I know a lot of people are angry about how he acted.

But you kind of think about six weeks of his life. He's ported in. I mean, he knows Lindsey better than anybody. He's so intimately involved in the case. And have wonder that from our understanding, you know, that juror said he had doubts and even to the point of reasonable doubts, but just isn't willing to vote not guilty because he couldn't get past what Lindsey did to her children. That is troubling, and I, you know, I understand why he was upset about that, and I'm a little concerned about what that means for our system because

Basically, that means that jurors aren't going to follow the law if something is bad enough and they think it's bad enough. It's almost like reverse jury nullification. What did you think about that? I mean, that's basically what it is reverse jury nullification. Well, as a former prosecutor, we used to have to fear jury nullification all the time and defense lawyers love it. And not supposed to do it, but it's part of the system. And this too is part of the system where you have a juror just couldn't get there.

And I don't know if I'd buy that the other juror said that he admitted he had reasonable doubts and still couldn't quit anyways. Because in the note to the judge, the lawyer said Cameron said he had doubts and you can have doubts, right? And still, both to convict. It's just a question of whether you have reasonable doubts and the judge did exactly what the judge is supposed to do, where the judge called all the jurors in question them all one by one, read rather than the instructions and still the juror was a hold-up.

“Respect, that's how it is. Whether you like it or you don't, it's our system. It's got to be $1.00, not 111, but 111 is still a victory for the defense.”

They got this hungry and now it's up to the prosecutor. My old friend Tim Cruz to decide whether to try it again. I think even though they may pursue charges and continue this train, I think the train stops before a jury trial. Yeah, I was curious about that since Tim is your old friend, you know, what your impression of what he's going to do after hearing all of the jury thoughts. I mean, I think that's really instructive and we'll get to that a little bit later in our show, all the jury statements.

But let's take a look at what the jury said actually in court when the jury read the note, you can just tell when you watch at sought one that that jury for a person fought hard if we take a listen. And the question is it is whether heavy hard that we report, we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and we'll not be able to. My, well, let me ask what is the party's position in regards to that question. You're on our on the Commonwealth perspective since the two instruction has already been given and then there was legislation deliberation out of that.

I think that it would require this trial at this point.

“Yeah, that's what the state wanted obviously, but I think Tim had another thing he pulled out of his bag.”

When you think about when he pulled up the Americans with disabilities act. I mean, he's tried just about everything. He's a great lawyer. Yeah, that was a bit much. Yeah, when you go claim that the holdout juror is violating the Americans with disabilities act because he's biased against those with mental disability.

What that means that you will always get in a quote, right?

Because anyone who votes a convict someone who is claiming insanity is violating federal laws. So my as well, just entriles because everyone will just claim the defensive insanity and then you can't rule against it because otherwise you're violating the ADA doesn't make any sense. But he's trying everything. He's even trying and why I guess we'll talk about this later trying to ask Trump for a pardon that Trump cannot give because it's in my conviction or state trial. So yeah, everything's a good lawyer.

Some of the stuff, I don't, I didn't like, I didn't like the accusation that this holdout juror was violating the law. He stood up in open courts that he lied under oath, thus he's a criminal.

I mean, I didn't like any of that. And also, I didn't like the appeal to the president for a pardon on a state case.

“So even though he's a really fine lawyer, I think he's gone too far in some of these things.”

Yeah, you know, the thing about this holdout, not just the ADA. I mean, the ADA, you know, just to catch our viewers up, that Americans with disability act. Kevin Reddington tried to do this emergency appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court, essentially the highest court in Massachusetts. And they said, no, sorry, no grant not going to do this. You got to keep going and have the Miss trial. But this juror, this holdout, I think the reason that it scares a lot of folks is because he, there's a belief.

And we don't know, we haven't heard from him yet, that he was refusing to follow law. And for most people, if that's the case, whether they're refusing to follow the law for or against, that's terrifying. If it's just that he had doubts, but he didn't find them reasonable, then that's totally acceptable. I think that's really where the difference is. And a lot of folks have been asking, you know, well, what, what happens if a juror refuses to follow law?

Well, the judge, the judge is always the fallback. And so that's sort of what a lot of people forget.

And a lot of judges, unfortunately, forget that, they're the fallback, they're what's called the 13th juror. And we use that term a lot in practice. The judge always serves as the 13th juror, meaning if the 12 jurors get it wrong, the judges, they are too fix it. And they're supposed to fix it. I know you don't like this rule, but the rule of what's called frenity. It means that when there's a tie, a tie goes to guess who the defense.

And so a judge, you know, employing the rule of frenity, if he really believed that that juror was not following the law. His duty as the fallback as the 13th juror is to do what we call direct a verdict. Problem is a lot of judges aren't willing to do that. They want to be able to have the cover of a jury doing it. But this is really a situation where the judge could have done something like that and definitely had some cover.

But he didn't, Dave, what did he do? We've got a thought three. He declared a mistrial. At this point, I'm going to declare that the jury is deadlocked. And I'm going to declare a mistrial. All right. I just wanted to make a comment.

And I'm kind of a history buff. And during World War II, Winston Churchill was the prime minister for England when England pretty much stood against not to Germany alone. And so Churchill, oftentimes, had to talk to the citizens and say, let us brace for our duties.

I always like that phrase.

And I thought of that phrase when all of you were agreeing to be honest jury. You agreed to brace for that duty. And each one of you knew how long the case was going to go. You knew how difficult the case was going to be to listen to facts-wise. But still, you brace for that duty.

So I'm curious what you thought when you heard that speech.

“I think you'll get a kick out of what I thought.”

But Curious Dave, what you heard. Well, I thought, I mean, I'm an easy mark once you bring up Churchill. You know, that's like, yeah, hero of history. I thought the judge of the good job in this. And you know, ready to push them.

And was upset that the instructions weren't heavy, more heavy handed, perhaps.

And he didn't grill the told-out juror a little more. And the judge said, what do you want me to do? Get a brass band out of here. So I think there's a mutual respect there. I don't think gratitude would talk to the judge like that unless he really knew him.

And respect it him and vice versa. But I know issues with that speech. I liked it. Did you? No, I love the speech.

I wouldn't know. I wasn't. I was curious your initial reaction because for me, okay, so you've met my husband John. So when a former life, my husband who's my law partner now, he used to be a high school teacher. And so the majority of my life, and still now, you can ask my kids,

we start most days with back on this day, Winston Churchill, or something like that. So as soon as the judge starts that, I was like, oh, my God. He's just like my husband with some history lesson on it. So immediately that's where I went kind of lightened the moment for me. But I'm with you.

I actually really like this judge.

“I think he has a really good ability to manage the emotions, which always run high.”

And a highly contested trial like this. I think he did a good job. And one of my favorite phrases that he talked about was when Readington, like you said, was complaining about giving the software a chart. He's like, what do you want me to do?

Just my voice in flexion. So I got kind of to get out of that. You know those pieces in your closet that you find yourself reaching for over and over again, the sweater that works with everything, the jeans that fit just right or the bag you carry everywhere. That's exactly what Quinn's does so well.

Quinn's makes elevated everyday essentials using premium materials. Their timeless designs are thoughtfully crafted for everyday wear. They're 100% Mongolian cashmere sweaters start at just $50 giving you luxury softness without the luxury price tag.

Find the fall pieces you will want most to wear at Quinn's.

“Download the Quinn's app for app exclusive offers or go to Quinn's.com/mktc.”

Get free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK too. That's qu-i-n-c-e.com/mk-tc. And then ready to be known when on Good Morning America. This is part of the media tour.

This is also shows you there is a difference between the Fensler and Pro Oscars. Pro Oscars have higher ethical stands.

We just do we, you know, for example,

we can't talk about a case beyond the four corners of the Pro. Because whereas the Fenslers give more leeway and the tie as you say goes to the defendant. And here you have the Defensler going on Good Morning America, going on all the shows, and pitching his case to the Court of Public opinion. In fact, let's watch, sought for, ready to go on GMA.

Let's talk about the trial. You said you crushed the prosecution in court for the final decision. the decision was a mistravelist decision. That's a, that's a, that's a, that's after the, that's after the fact, and you know, the emotions run high and we just finished a six seven week trial and. But you were a grad saying it?

No, I don't regret saying it at all. I think that I think the defense was was very strong and I think it wouldn't very well. I think I perhaps could have been a little more circumspect dealing with 10 crews instead of saying that I crushed them. I could have said that I, you know, did a good job.

No, I know he finally he does and, and you know, he came clean on the holdout juror too.

I just chalked that up to a very heated trial and sometimes we don't respond as lawyers the most perfect way because we have to separate out what we're dealing with and the trauma we're dealing with with the fact that we're in court and a lot of us are highly competitive.

“And so, you know, sometimes that competition gets the better of us, maybe that's what happened with Readington.”

But I did like what he said finally about the holdout juror where, you know, he sort of came back on some of his statements, but let's take a listen to it. It's not five. You make of the one juror was holding out. You know, again, I, I, at the end of the case made statements to the effect that I was upset. And the reason I was upset, I would, I would defend that individuals right to be a holdout forever.

That's part of our judicial system and I respect that and I would certainly defend his right to do that. What I was upset about was after that lengthy trial and the work that everyone put into this case, including these jurors that spent literally almost two months away from their home, their drive, their family. But we were gentlemen, had an opinion, not that he was sticking, like, you know, the movie, 12 angry men. But in fact, he had agreed, according to the note, from the full lady, that he had doubt, but he would not apply the law of reasonable doubt as presented by the judge.

That's not right. And that's why I was upset. Well, he's explaining it away, but he still may be met with a bar complaint because what he did outside the courthouse was really unacceptable. I mean, I have a lot of respect for writing to him. But calling out the juror and also identifying as a male juror, so that you know he's one of three. And now they're trying to dox him online, trying to harass him, it's terrible.

I mean, when you're a juror, you give up a lot to your public service. And even if you disagree with the decision, you shouldn't go out there and blast the juror and say the juror's rob and stole and lie under oath. There's a criminal, and that's totally I'm called for writing to did a great job at trial, but that was not as fine as moment. I'm glad he's at least trying to explain it away, but it still leaves a bad taste, my mouth. Yeah, and now I'm glad he did. I'm glad he backtracked on that because they are doing a public service, and it's not fun.

Nobody enjoys being on a jury. It's definitely a public service that most people don't want.

“I think I don't know what they get in Florida, but I think they get $25 a day here in Georgia.”

I mean, it's absolute pitens. It's ridiculous. What we ask of people, especially leaving their work and their families for six weeks, not being able to talk about what they're doing. It's a pretty big ask. So I want to talk, I want to talk a little bit more about what a mistrom means. And if we've had mistrials and stuff, but I'm dying to talk to you about this. So Kevin Ruddington went on Good Morning America and asked President Trump for a pardon.

He's since gone on and clarified that yes, he understands that the President can't pardon someone. But let's take a listen and then have a little chat about that. That's not six. What's next for Lindsay? I'd like to say that perhaps Donald Trump, who felt compelled to speak out about this case, made very well.

Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady. The type of person she is, which she's been through, and consider a pardon.

I mean, we know, Dave, the President can't pardon these are state charges.

President, you know, the executive branch of whatever agency is the one that does the partens.

“Yeah, you can't give a partner, but can you give a pattern?”

Can you do that instead of a partner? Can you maybe get some different? Maybe, maybe they've got that in Massachusetts. I don't know. I mean, and I was thinking about it. And I was like, okay, the governor of Massachusetts definitely is not going to take a call from Trump because it's the governor. You know, that's the executive officer who would have to give a pardon for that state.

And definitely not going to happen there, but he did qualify later on that he was hoping because Ted Cruz apparently is a Republican.

Well, it's not Ted Cruz. I'm sorry. Well, not Tom Cruz either. That's another. I know. I know. Tim Cruz apparently is a Republican. So I guess, writing to him is hoping that Donald Trump, I give him a call and weigh a little bit on him to consider a pardon. I don't know. We'll see if that pans out. I'm not thinking that that's going to work out for him, but

No, but by the way, because I know Tim Cruz. I don't, and I actually do know that I live in the same dorm with Ted Cruz in law. Oh my gosh.

You're in a common bathroom on our fully. Yes. So, so I know both Ted Cruz and Tim Cruz, but I can't say that I know Tom Cruz. I do not know.

I don't know Tom Cruz. Although I've enjoyed some of his movies, not all just some. Though, let's give me the push out call for Tom to come on. Yeah, let's let's complete the trifecta here that the hat trick of Cruz is, but when it comes to Tim Cruz, he's not going to be swayed by external political pressure. But what, and that's, that's my belief. But at the same time, the reason why Kevin Reddington went and brought up Trump's name, knowing that Trump cannot provide a pardon here, is that he knows that Trump really is the leader of the Republican Party, and Tim Cruz is the only Republican elected district attorney Massachusetts.

There are 11, 11 district attorneys and Massachusetts, one Republican. So he's thinking, well, it may be if Trump says something, it can help maybe Tim Cruz avoid a trial. On the other hand, if you look to see the politics of this, most people who want Lindsey Clinton convicted of the top charge murder seem to be conservative Republicans. It seems to be something like making Kelly, for example, like who believed that what she did was so horrific, she shouldn't get the insanity defense. So maybe he's trying to ask Trump to do something against his own political interest here, which wouldn't happen.

No, I don't think it's, I don't think it's likely to happen. I don't see getting a getting any type of deal, but Kevin Reddington told Good Morning America that he is really hoping now that he can work out a deal. Well, listen to Seth Sevin, and then I want to chat with you about what happens usually when there's a mistrial.

“They have a decision to make. Now, they could seek a retrial. They could seek a plea agreement. What are you expecting? What are you willing to do?”

I'm willing to listen to Tim. I've known Tim for 30 years. He's a very hydrogen prosecutor, a conservative gentleman. I hope, however, after sitting through this trial and seeing the evidence that was presented from the government as well as from the defense that he would revisit that issue, and hopefully would be able to work something out that would be acceptable to both sides. Okay, that's very different. He's a hard charter, a had-charging prosecutor. That's very different than what he said at the press comments where he said,

Tim Cruise claims he supports victims, but he didn't even know their names until he looked down on his paper. That was another ad hominim attack that I thought crossed the line. And here, I think cooler heads are prevailing, and you have the defense are realizing that the only person who can make the decision on whether this case is retried is the guy he insulted at the press conference. So now it's like a more conciliatory crunch. He's like, "I've known him for 30 years. He's had-charging." And so, okay, that's the way it should be though, because I'm sure they know each other. You know, by the way, you can see Tim Cruise's character. He did not fire back within insults towards Kevin Reddington.

Right, you did. I mean, there was nothing like that. So I definitely think Kevin Reddington thought about it and thought the better part of this was to be a little bit more conservative in his statements about Mr. Cruise. Hopefully, that will be the message that comes across. And hopefully, they will be able to work out a plea deal. You know, I've had a number of Miss Trials. Sometimes, hold out jurors. Sometimes, very split jurors. Sometimes, jurors. I've actually had journalists conduct where jurors went and looked up a case online, and I've had cases where jurors talked to other jurors about things.

I mean, just crazy cases of Miss Trials, and I can tell you, in every single one, we've been able to work out a deal after.

“So I think a lot of times when the case is, when it's easy for the government to see their case and think it's wonderful until they hear the cross examination.”

And until they hear the other side and until they hear the jurors, because that's, you know, you know, like I look at it through a defense lens, prosecution looks at it through a prosecution lens.

So I wouldn't be surprised if we saw some type of a plea deal here, and you know, I can't help but think there's got to be something that they could negotiate.

Perhaps just throwing this out, you know, maybe Lindsey Clancy could plea to and get, you know, the not criminally responsible and agree to waive her right to challenge her commitment for a certain amount of times sort of like that, you know, the lady who.

“I think she's been in for 20 years or some Andrea Yates, she's essentially not challenged her commitment for the last 20 years, not tried to get out.”

Maybe we could see something like that and maybe Mr. Cruz would would give, I don't know, maybe that's my prediction as to what's going to happen. It's really interesting because the mental hospital, which is where she would go, she's not going free, but that's not considered punishment.

So that's not a criminal sentence that you can't agree to, you can't say we're going to guarantee 20 years in the hospital.

But at the same time, it's a good question to raise, can you forego your right to ask to be released at for a certain period of time, because it's up to the doctors in the judge. I don't know that question off hand and seems to get around the issue of can you guarantee a certain number of years in the hospital, you cannot do, because no one wants her to go free in a year and then have kids again.

“We want her to get well and if it means 10, 20 years in the hospital, so be it.”

But no one thinks that she just be let out after six, eight months or anything like that. I think they might have to be a little creative, but will Patrick Clancy before we we cut to a break Patrick Clancy's lawyers have threatened legal action, they are apparently fed up with all of the online falsehoods they said. And so they've actually gave a statement that law enforcement has been notified they are on notice he is sick of all of the things happening online. It's really unfortunate because his family's been Docs, they've been defamed, I mean this is just ridiculous all the threats that he's getting.

I'm so glad that he's doing this because enough is enough. I know people like this too.

“I mean where you have to tell them no Patrick Clancy did not do it, you know how I know because Lindsey Clancy admitted she did it.”

Her lawyer admitted she did it. No one is saying Patrick Clancy did it except for cooks on the internet and if you are wondering. Then if you believe that way then you are one of those cooks, okay, so so let's just chill out and just admit maybe not everything is conspiracy theory, okay. Next senior investigative reporter and host of criminally obsessed Anne Emerson will join us so this gospel is the Plancy jurist speaking out. Stay tuned.

Washington politicians are always getting in your wallet. Now they're messing with your credit card, your credit card and the security it offers are under attack.

Senators Dick Durbin and Roger Marshall want to change the nation's payment system to benefit corporate mega stores like Walmart and Target at the expense of everyday Americans. Credit cards keep your payments secure and provide rewards that families use to help make everyday purchases more affordable. The Durbin Marshall mandates would let corporate mega stores cut corners on credit card processing, routing transactions over cheaper, untested networks with weaker security and fewer protections. That means higher risk of fraud, greater chance of stolen personal data and the loss of rewards programs.

Just so corporate mega stores can pocket billions of dollars in higher profits. Tell Congress to guard your card, visit guardyourcard.com to take action and learn more. Welcome back to the M.Patreon Crime Show. We're really excited to join now senior investigative reporter and host of the criminally obsessed podcast Anne Emerson. Welcome and it's so good to have you. Thank you so much. I'm excited to be here with you guys. Yes, so we're going to talk a little bit about what the jurors have revealed this week. We've had a couple jurors come out and talk to us, but first just curious you're overall take away your impressions from this trial.

Wow, you know, it was, it was something that it was almost like this, this snowball that started. That's what it felt like to me. It was a snowball and it sort of turned into an avalanche by the end of it. And you know, we were watching them momentum build and we've all watched, you know, some of these high profile trials build and momentum as they go along. But this one took on a life of itself because what happened was you started having this crossroads. I felt of the communities watching this along with us. We had our true crime audiences that that you know that we have with our podcast.

That we're used that watch these criminal cases with us, but then we had a whole new level of interest in this case and that was really looking at wait a minute, you know, I had postpartum issues. I had. I had some issues when I was having my baby, you know, we're hearing hearing those kind of voices come out of the woodwork on this case and and it really.

I've been covering this as well with UK stations because internationally people wanted to understand where we were coming from on this case. So yeah, and it was so polarized.

“That was the other thing, you know, you you were dealing with mental health issues with Lindsay Clancy, but then you had this side that was like we have to find justice for these three children.”

They were not coming together. They were not coming together and we saw it in America, we saw it in our, you know, as that conversation expanded across the world, but then we we really saw it in that jury room. I think that's really one of the best summaries I've heard because it really, it's true it was polarizing just like our countries polarizing, but I think it's interesting you're talking about people in the UK and internationally because I've noticed that too, you know, people that I know that don't necessarily listen to true crime or pay attention have been talking to me about this case.

We really have tapped into a whole different population and I kind of wonder if the interest abroad is not only, I know that everybody's obsessed with our criminal system, our criminal legal system, but I think they're also obsessed with our healthcare system and just, you know, our, our culture and this really tapped so many different aspects of that so it's, it's interesting that it's taken off like it has, but people really are interested well let's, let's talk a little bit about these jurors, all right, so we've got three jurors that came out and they talked to a local station.

NBC tenant Boston, the three jurors that we've heard from their interviews aired, we've got Paula Devlin and just for background she worked as a government contractor, we've got Ronnie Carlson.

That's a retired fifth grade special needs teacher and that was also the four person and then we've got Kelly Farina who's a retired chef from Plymouth so those are the three people that that we've got their interviews that have come forward. I'm guessing they're coming out of the woodwork every day so maybe we'll have some more but let's talk with juror Ronnie the four person. So I thought this, this was this literally summed up what I've thought this whole time.

She said that with everyone saying how much Lindsey loved her children, everything proved that she loved her children, you know, the journals, the mother and law, all that stuff.

“That was hard to get around like why would she want her kids dead? I think we can take a listen, sign nine and I'm curious what what you thought about her impressions.”

Now, we kept having to bring ourselves back to the fact that she, we weren't trying to figure out if she murdered the children, she did and she's admitting that. We're trying to figure out did she know right from wrong at that time and with everybody saying she loved her children so much and everything proved she loved her children from our journals to. Her mother and law, everything proved that she loved her children so she had to have snapped and not known what she was doing to me that it was proof that she, she didn't know what she was doing.

So in one of the things in your show, you've had a new episode coming out which I think it sounds really exciting, your latest episode of Crimly Obsessed. What the prosecution did wrong, listening to that juror, all I could think about is where you, you talked about how they were too harsh, you know, the prosecution was too harsh, they lacked empathy.

“They went after the mother and law, I mean, is that what you're thinking when you hear from this jury?”

Yeah, completely, I mean, they just, not only were, it was even that they had the right tone, it was almost like they were tone deaf to what was going on. And unfortunately, they could not correct soon enough, you know, this was one of those things that they started off in the opening statements. And then they just switch gears because they can't win with the argument that they're using the prosecution goes with, you know, we hear at the start. And this is just me, I mean, I am not a lawyer, I am not, you know, I don't have the, you know, just as a lay person, I'm listening to them say, well, you know, she was basically like trying to make her sound out like she was a bad mom.

There's nobody that said that she was a bad mom. We couldn't hear, no, you could not find a person in that courtroom that came as a witness that would say that that Lindsey Clancy was a bad mom, even the people that that the prosecution was using for their witnesses to talk about what was going on. Nobody was saying that she was a bad mom, so it just, it just landed so badly, plus, you know, that the fact that the prosecution just kept on trying to come from this aggressive standpoint, at least it felt like that to me.

And I think that's what the jurors were expressing was that it felt very aggressive and hostile, and it didn't need to be like that. This, this is a case that needs compassion, no matter what you're thinking, you have three children that died.

Yeah, I thought it was telling that I think it was running came out and said, you know, the prosecutors were too harsh, they were too cold and Kevin really had a nice way about Kevin. Oh, hold on, they're calling the defense floor Kevin and they're calling. He's winning prosecutors. You know, who's winning? Yeah, exactly. From the beginning from the opening stance. Yeah, he was like a granddad. He was he came across and you know, you know, I we thought about this as well, like, you know, when I when I've been talking to my

folks on the on the episodes, you know, he came across also he's a man, you know, he's an older man, he's from a older generation. You don't almost think that he would be even more critical of Lindsey right on some levels, but no, you get this grandfather who said that that well said that that Lindsey was like a daughter to him.

“I mean, yeah, like, and I think when you've got a jury and tell me if I'm wrong, but you've got nine women on that jury and three men.”

What why are these two female prosecutors doing any favors right now by coming out like that?

No, they weren't. And I mean, that's that's what it sounds like the jury recognized and Kevin runnington was sympathetic to his client. He had compassion and that's what this case needed it needed compassion and that's it's sometimes hard when we go into court because we get so I always call it academic with our focus. Some of it is we have to we have to deal with bad stuff every day. We have to deal with clients that are accused or did bad stuff bad things happened. So we kind of try to block that out to a certain extent, but you have to remember, especially when you're a front of jurors that you got to have compassion and Kevin runnington did and the state didn't and you got to have compassion for all sides because honestly all sides have gone through trauma and, you know, I think that was one of the areas that he really outshined the state and if they retry it, I'm sure they'll clean that up.

I also wanted to play that same juror who's talking about the holdout juror sounds like they were pretty pretty mad about this holdout. And this is this is the four person if we can place that 10.

“He had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt after we watched that video of the interview. I think that's what it was. He admitted he had reasonable doubt.”

And I started filling out the forms. I was so excited. I actually, there were three forms. I had a fill out and I started filling them out. I wrote my signature on each one.

And then he said, but I'm still not going to say that she's now guilty by reason of incident.

“I mean, I've got a question for you guys about that as well. Like if they had just told the judge that there was reasonable doubt that this, that this juror had reasonable doubt and was not following the letter of the law.”

Do you believe that the judge would have had to replace him if it had been said like that as opposed to the way it came across? Well, you know, they tried to do that, but in the instruction in the note from the jury, they said the holdout juror said that he had doubts. They didn't put the word reasonable. I suspect that if they had put the word reasonable in there, maybe the questioning of the holdout juror would have been different because the judge's like, you can have doubts and still vote to convict.

You just kind of reasonable doubts. So then when the judge questioned each individual juror and then just re-read the reasonable doubt and instruction, this whole thing was cured. I do think that if they had focused on he says he has reasonable doubts and still will not vote to a quit. I think maybe that would have been a better chance for the defense to get him balanced from the jury. But judges really hate to invade anything the jury's doing. They really caution stepping against it. Dave and I were talking earlier about this concept of the 13th juror where judges always sit as the 13th juror is what we call it, where they basically can fix anything that goes wrong with the first 12 and so the more likely outcome. I would see if this judge had felt so inclined and clearly he didn't was to exercise his power as the 13th juror and he could have done what's called directing a verdict where he could have said, well, if this is the case, I'm going to go ahead and direct a verdict of knock guilty.

You know, by recent insanity, criminal responsibility. Judges are really not, they don't like doing that, but I think that's much more likely than him actually going behind the juror and talking about whether or not the doubts reasonable because that's a personal decision. You know, what is reasonable to me might be different than you might be different than Dave. That's one of the things that the judges don't really like to get involved in. So I think that's more likely what we would see.

So he literally after this multi-week trial. Now one point from the prosecution and again, they keep calling them the prosecutors. They don't call them by their first name. So this case was always headed at least to a mistrial if not in a quiddle.

I love that one. I think we've got to play that. Let's not play that side.

Let's see if you're a Paula. Did the prosecution make any points at all? Did you? Was there anything that you were like you considered? No. I don't think so. I mean, I thought about that a lot. I mean, they did not. They were not feeling that prosecution at all.

“It's the worst day. I was a state attorney for 12 years. The worst thing you could possibly hear after how long was this trial six weeks?”

And then after all that, not one point. Not one hit. I know hit her against you. A perfect game against you. No one wants that.

Well, and they also said, and this was interesting. They talked about her being harsh. We've got, well, listen in a minute, but one of the jurors, the Kelly juror, Kelly Farina, who's the retired chef from Plymouth. They didn't like the prosecution either said, you know, really, really harsh. So it seems like that's kind of an overwhelming sentiment here. Actually, let's take a listen. It's not 11. Okay. I'm wondering what your reaction was to the prosecution's opening statement. There were some things that they said in their statement that I thought got a reaction out of you.

On day one of testing. I just wanted to be harsh. So very, very harsh. I mean, again, and maybe we were talking with ourselves here, but the fact that they had no character witnesses.

“So in regards to Lindsay of being a bad mother, I mean, right out of the gate, it's like,”

you're presenting all these medical professionals, but nobody's presenting for the prosecution, a woman, and a mother of three children. So I found to be biased right out of the gate. I found them also to be kind of unprofessional. And just without a heart, and for me, that a right away, I was like, okay, where is this going? Right from statement one, there is no compassion in this courtroom right now. Wow. And you know, you hear that from the get go, like that they had no compassion and that they don't, that they're harsh, and they were grading on the nerves of these jurors.

You know, in, you know, if I read between the lines, like, they were not enjoying with the prosecution had to say. And it, and it feels to me like, they were looking for something, like, give me something to understand why this is at trial right now.

That you are charging this woman with first degree murder, give me a reason, a motive, something that says that she wanted her children to die.

Right, I feel like they were, they were floored that the prosecution was kind of going with this and not letting up. And, you know, and this, this really raises the, the, the question of, I understand that they feel like they need to get justice for these three kids again, like that's why the state, you know, brought this into the courts.

“But, but why are they going first degree? And, and I think that's what the jury was asking the whole time. They were waiting for them to tell them, well, there was this day.”

And then she wrote this text and then this happened. No, all we heard was that she was really, really sick. I think the jury was waiting for that too. They were waiting for that shoe drop and that damning text, like you said. Yeah, they, they definitely mispleted. I also think this suicide attempt where they, they spent so much time. I know I was listening to the trial a lot that week. And all I kept hearing was about the suicide attempt not being real. And then just kept thinking, are you all dense? Like, do you not, like, she, I mean, whether or not she was successful or not.

She, she's, she's in a wheelchair. Like, she's in a wheelchair. So, you know, show some compassion here. I really think that backfired with the jury. Yeah, I think she couldn't press whites, right? Right. Yeah, no, the prosecution didn't read the room, right? I mean, they state it aggressive that none of this was catching on with the jury. And they just kept going after her, although it was a little different by the end. I mean, it did seem to try to modify a little bit. They're closing was different than the opening.

And in fact, I thought the closing was their, their finest moments, especially because Renekton's close was a bit lackluster. I know that you've talked about this a lot on your podcast. But before we go on to that, I just, I do want to mention though that the youngest juror that came out anonymously stood up for the holdout juror in a way. She said that everyone was pretty striding in their views.

I'm also the majority of the people on, it doesn't matter what side it was on, that was very firm in their like stamps and their beliefs kind of from the beginning.

You know, the stand-alone juror was not the only one that was unwilling to to see things from the other side. So I'm going to kind of defend that individual in a sense. But there was some big personalities in that one. Yeah. I mean, I applaud her for coming out. Yeah. Do you want to go on? I know we had so much to talk about so little time.

“There was an update this morning. Can we love that?”

I'm asking about it. The fact that, writing to us now trying to get the case thrown out, he doesn't want a retrial.

He's going to ask a judge to declare double jeopardy exists.

I think there's no chance of that. But I love to hear what you guys think about that. Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, as far as what Readington once this now just, you know, I thought that I really took a good look at what he was talking about in this double jeopardy. That he didn't have manifest necessity when he went ahead and did this. You know, and this goes back to our holdout juror, this goes back to the fact that he believes that he did have a choice. That he could have replaced them. That there could have been a different ending to this. It didn't have to get him as trial.

And now you got this situation with, you know, he wants to put up in September 29th of this hearing this double jeopardy that they just can't try him again, just because they didn't, you know, because of the way it turned out that prosecution does not get to do over. I think it's a really long shot, but I do think it's keeping the conversation going. And, you know, the more people that hear about this case, the more we go through it, I mean, we've already set out loud, you know, this, this case caught caught on fire.

So so fast and furiously that who are they going to get on this jury this next jury that are going to be able to try this well. Maybe they can, but I mean, this is really caught the interest of the nation. So I think this is a really interesting tactic from Kevin Ridingson personally, just because, you know, once you really kind of look at it, they're going to have to take it seriously, right? Yeah, well, so I think it's a loser, but I'm interested in what you think because I think most people don't don't understand from the get going.

Unless you do this type of work, unless you're talking about these cases, they don't understand that you can retry someone after a mistrow. I think a lot of folks actually think that a mistrow you're done and that double jeopardy prohibits it, and it doesn't. So I think legally, he's going to lose. I think he's probably educating a lot of people about how double jeopardy and mistrow is actually working our system. So perhaps that's his motivation, but legally, I think he's, it's a dead loser.

Well, why would he be doing that to educate? He wants to clear his client or at least get it out without another trial. Is this just to, I guess, maybe what I said, keep the conversation going so that Tim Cruise will rethink his decision to possibly retry it. At the longer this gets played out in courts in the court of public opinion.

“And that's what I think, what do you think, Anne?”

I think so. I mean, I definitely think he's already, you know, thrown another one out there about asking for a pardon. And I mean, everybody went, well, that can't happen. But in any immediately said, well, I got Cruise think, you know, he's poking the bear. He's poking the bear. He's cruising, saying, look, there are other options on the table.

And first of all, for you to go hard and fast at first degree,

I can't even imagine that they'd really want to do that again. Once they've already seen what's happened. I mean, for all intents and purposes, they'd basically just had their, this group of jurors in this mistrial had been what they needed to see to see how people were thinking.

“And a really important point too, I think, is that this was a split jury to some degree.”

This was not just 11 to one the whole time. And we have, we've now heard from these jurors who said that there were more people that felt, you know, they were also leaning towards some level of a guilty verdict. But I, from the get go, as a lay person, just some way that follows this stuff. I really was like, you've got five verdicts and three children that you've got to apply these to.

And then you got, you know, for for this jury to go through it, that was, that was very complicated. So yeah, they had big personalities in there. Yeah, they had people that really felt very strongly one way or the other. There's no way when you have three small children in this tragedy that you're not going to have emotions.

You know, this is wrong.

Then this could have been an end straw, right?

It definitely could. Yeah, actually, actually, maybe you didn't know this answer. Did they rule 111 on all the counts or just murder? Do we know if it was a hunger and everything with it, when it was 111 on everything, including man's heart.

“The only thing we know so far is 111 on murder.”

But what they were, what they actually voted on was that verdict about criminal responsibility. So it was 111 on criminal responsibility. And it sounds like that was the only thing they decided. They didn't go to any of the lesser included because if it's, it's all or nothing. If she's not criminally responsible, she's not criminally responsible to everything.

And that was really interesting, Dave, because a lot of times, and we've talked about this on our show and, unfortunately, my personal life, in my private professional life, I've dealt with this a lot, where jurors like to split the baby. And so maybe if they're split, they'll say, Oh, well, I'll give you man's water.

If you give me not guilty on first, you know, it's like bordering on us.

It's kind of gross. But it doesn't sound like we saw any of that here. You know, they were just 111 on the ultimate issue of why they're not, she was criminally responsible. But well, you've got, you've got, yeah, sorry, finish that thought.

I was going to say, I would say, like, if you look in the comment section, you know, because this, this has been just going so viral online, you look in the comment section of what people are talking about. And it's, she's guilty. She's not guilty. She's not guilty. I mean, like, literally, when you go through the comments of just anybody's page,

anybody talking about this, it is so polarized that you just can't even, you don't understand like, how could they get to some kind of bartering? And it sounds like they had a really hard time with that. I think it really came down to that they had to say if they had reasonable doubt.

“And it was, that's why they were all flipped out on this last journey.”

When, when he, when they say he said, you know, I, I may have reasonable doubt, but I'm not, I'm not, that's not going to change my vote here. Yeah. Well, and this is just my final thought on that, but it's almost like a marathon. It's like you ran 25 miles and you can't make the last one. You know, so it is frustrating because you put a lot of effort into it.

It's a six week trial, and then they don't have a result. And so that I could see how that's frustrating. But so, and you've got a new episode, which I can't wait to listen to. It was just published, the Lindsey Clancy, Miss Trial, three prosecution mistakes that they won't make again.

Can you tell our audience where they can find you? Thank you. Yes, on YouTube. We're, criminally, obsessed is on YouTube. You can find us there, but we're also on anywhere that you get your podcasts. We're on Apple and Spotify and, and all of those platforms.

So you can find us there, and also you can, you can shoot me messages and tell me what you think about what's going on at an investigates. That's mine as well. My social handles. So yeah, there's lots of ways to reach out to us, but we're going to keep this conversation going, and, you know, if Reading Team gets his way, we're going to be talking about this by late fall.

It looks like if they do a re-trial. Yeah, that's wild, but we'll be following it. Thank you so much for joining us. Next up, we've got our closing. You might already own the fire, but we need to start with less lethal methods to avoid the financial and mental repercussions of pulling the trigger.

This is where Burna comes in. That's B-Y-R-N-A. Burna's less lethal launchers are equipped with tear gas and kinetic ammunition and designed to incapacitate that attacker for up to 40 minutes. And Burna is excited to introduce the all new compact launcher. It's sleek, slim, and it's like a sledgehammer. The same size is a smartphone, allowing everyone to conceal, carry everywhere company and with confidence.

Their pistols are American-made and hand assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana, with over 80% of the components in the compact launcher being sourced right here in the USA. Burna is legal in all 50 states, where cars know background checks and can be shipped directly to your door. And Burna is trusted by hundreds of police departments and government agencies worldwide. Try before you buy visit burna.com to find a Burna dealer partner near you.

That's B-Y-R-N-A.com. Welcome back to the MK True Crime Show. Now, it's time for our closing arguments. Actually, take it away. Well, thanks, Dave.

So I want to talk about all the crazy, atrick-clancy conspiracy theories that are out there.

“Because as crazy as some of them are, I think they tell us something really important about the criminal legal system.”

People want to know what happened. They don't want to just be told what happened. They want proof. They want the unanswered questions that they have answered.

So whenever I'm preparing for a trial, I always say, if the jurors don't get the answers to their questions,

they're going to blame the state. And what I think fuels these conspiracy theories is just that.

They don't like clues that haven't been followed.

“They don't like doors that haven't been closed.”

So when those doors are left open, people start filling out those blanks themselves. That's when you get theories like Patrick Clancy knew more than he said. That he was somehow involved. That the 911 call was suspicious. That his grief was suspicious.

That his remarriage was suspicious. Not saying any of those things are true. In fact, all of the lawyers have pushed back against these theories. These crazy conspiracy theories involving Patrick. But here's the important distinction.

The existence of a conspiracy theory doesn't mean there's a conspiracy. Sometimes it just means that there's unanswered questions. And those are very different things. Because when you leave legitimate questions unanswered, you don't get to be surprised when people start asking illegitimate questions.

If we collectively and when I mean collectively, I mean the government, the police, prosecutors, everybody involved in the system. If we failed to test evidence, failed to follow leads and failed to answer obvious questions. And we leave investigative doors open.

“How can we then ask a jury to fill those holes with a conviction?”

How can we say, you don't need to know that? That's not how reasonable doubt works. And I think that's the lesson here. Questions are not the problem. Questions are healthy.

Lawyers ask them, investigators should ask them. Durers are supposed to consider them.

But the problem is when you take unanswered questions

and you turn your favorite theory into a fact. Because sometimes I don't know is the most honest answer. And in a criminal courtroom, I don't know is sometimes exactly where reasonable doubt begins. Thanks, Dave.

Very well said, and it's important to keep bringing out the truth when it comes to Patrick Clancy. He did not murder the kids. He's the victim here.

“And it's just, it's so a compounds of tragedy”

to make him into the real killer. When the real killer admitted she was the real killer. Yep. All right. Well, I want to go back to the tape brothers.

You remember them? The top G Andrew Tate. They're being held in a Miami federal jail waiting for their extradition hearing. Well, just today as of the time of this recording,

a federal magistrate ruled against them. Said that they will not get bail. They will wait in that facility. That detention center until their extradition hearing is decided. This was a big deal because they fought hard for pre-travelies.

Their best argument was an emergency. Releases now, they said, or Romania could try to convict us in absentia while we're trapped in Miami. That would be unfair, right? They're stuck in a jail cell and they're going to be tried in Romania

in absentia. That was their pitch. Then came the uh-oh. Romanian prosecutors came out and didn't announce a trial. No, they filed a new indictment.

One that must first pass through Romania's preliminary chamber review

before any trial begins. In other words, the tates said that the clock was running out. Romania showed that the clock had barely started. So that doesn't make Romania's allegations less serious. It just made the tates claim of an imminent trial far less credible.

And just destroyed their best argument for this extraordinary pre-travelies. Now, their Romanian emergency now looks about as authentic as their yachts and bogates that were behind their online persona. Impressive on camera, far less impressive under oath. And when your exceptional circumstance disappears,

you don't sail away on that imaginary yacht. You stay docked at FDC Miami. That's my closing statement. Ashley merchant, it's great to be on with you. Thank you for being such a great co-host.

And I want to put a little pitch out there for the MK True Crime Show. Because if you're a juror in the Lindsey Clancy trial and want to discuss your experience with us and who better them discuss it with us and fill away. We're awesome. Yeah, you can reach us at MK True Crime at devilmakecaremedia.com.

We love to have you on. So again, thank you Ashley. And thank you to our guests and Emerson. And thank you all for joining us. Have a great week.