Lindsay Clancy Mistrial, Defense Asks for Presidential Pardon, and Copycat Murder in Illinois

Hello, everyone, and welcome to another episode of Positively Legal.

On Mark Iglarge, and they tell me that I'm a veteran trial lawyer, Ajunk Law Professor, author, proud father of three spectacular kids, happily married, and President CEO and founder of the Jonas Spielberg fan club. You know, that's awesome. I'm the only member so far, but I promise we'll find some people.

Your family's thinking about it. They're on the fence.

“That's why you're the entire board, Mark. You're the entire board.”

But thank you. Who are you? Who are you? Tell us. I'm telling you, I am Jonas Spielberg. I only have one board member. I'm looking at him. I'm also a criminal defense attorney,

and founder of Jonna Spielberg Law. Now, on Friday,

which was what a whirlwind day in the Lindsay Plancy Triple murder case, because the judge on Friday declared a mistrial after the jury. Did he? I hadn't heard. Really? Oh, yeah. They're not still deliberating, really? No, no. But they made deliberate one day again soon,

because the jury did remain deadlock. The mistrial was granted. And now we have to decide what is going to happen from this point forward. You and I are going to share our thoughts. I'm sure you have many of them as do I. Yes. And many people are so concerned about copycats.

You know, whenever there's a school shooting, people worry, oh, now you're going to have more school shootings. Well, their fears are realized. There's a woman out in Chicago in Illinois. Apparently, she was watching the Lindsay Clancy trial, and she killed her toddler.

And she'll be arguing, guess what, postpartum psychosis. We'll see if it fits. We'll see what happens with that.

“And it's not good for the, I think, the Clancy team to have people”

copying her actions. Your thoughts? Well, we'll get those, Jonna, right? Yeah. I'm furious about this. It's not good for the world. Not just the Clancy team, but we're going to lighten it up for a few minutes too. And we have to talk about Tiger Woods who took a plea deal in his most recent DWI-ish case out of Florida resulting in him losing his license for a pretty long time.

Most people think he got a sweetheart deal. I'm going to tell you why I don't think he did. That's a little ridiculous. Oh, my, a little tickler. Okay. I can't wait. So, right now, happy hour. I love it. It's our happy five minutes. Yes, yes. And I've been dying to talk to you because you left the country this weekend.

You've gone. You make it seem like I escaped and did something nefarious. Okay, with my wife of 26 years. Okay. And we went to a family wedding in Vienna. That's Austria. Oh, look at that. That was white night. That's right. I figured. Right. Now, if people are watching this, you've got to do a close-up on the white night's

Sue of Marks because you can still keep paisley type kind of design in it. Only you could pull it off. Yeah. Well, my gosh. Right. Thank you for making sure that people who weren't watching it on YouTube and were driving in their cars when I said white night, that'll minimize the hate mail when you say it was regarding my clothing.

Okay. Yeah. Glad we made that distinction.

And that is what she looked fabulous as always.

“And then another picture up there, I think of the actual wedding attire.”

Yes. We took that in our lobby. Very very down. Oh, and they were looking at that. Look at the producers. They went all over my install. Look at them. That is literally a castle. We walked the red carpet and we went in there. And there was like ballerinas dancing and there's, oh, look at Carly.

That's my cousin Carly who got married to a guy from Austria. We adore him. Paul is just extraordinary. His family is wonderful. It was just a magical weekend. It wasn't just that the wedding was so over the top spectacular. But it's that the families blended so nicely and the love that they have for them. Each other is so pure.

It really did bring my wife and I back to our wedding day, which was also so spectacular. It was just a beautiful magical time. It just was. Well, that's nice. Because the New York is going to shit all over it. I'm going to bring it down. I'm going to bring you down a little bit.

You know what? Why on earth would somebody get married in Vienna?

Or you know, he likes the cookie Vienna, Vienna fingers like me.

So yes, his family, his family lives there. They're both prominent of husband and the wife of Paul, the groom. His parents, they're both prominent doctors in Austria, Salt of the earth, magnificent people, dance the night away. This party was called for 330 in the afternoon.

It ended at 3 in the morning when they brought in a DJ. They barks, playing that or parts. I don't know. Playing that house music stuff. It was crazy. It was just over the top.

“It sounds like a good time. But that's what I was really wondering.”

How much money does this Paul guy break in to have said. I can't put a price tag on love. Oh, yeah. Come on. Just stop it. Just stop it.

All right. Are we talking clancy? Because I'm telling you that was so on my mind. I could not fully divorce myself. Not just because by the way, I mean, we were literally traveling and I'm getting called.

Do you want to be on CNN to talk about this? I just wanted to. And I'm like, OK, I'm wearing a grateful shirt. And it's purple and it's short sleeves. Is that OK? And they're like, "Oh, we'll catch you next time."

They didn't want me to just jump on the Toronto airport that are our layover to talk about this case. But boy did I want to. I had a lot of strong feelings about it. Wait, one quick thing. I do too.

But one time, not that long ago. That happened to me. I was in my office wearing a t-shirt with a cat on it. And somebody called, "Do you know what it did?" And didn't have any other clothes. Here, I just, I turned it backwards. And did it.

And did it. So there it is. And you pulled that off. OK. I still don't think about a purple t-shirt. You know, would have worked for this.

“I think they wanted to lease the jacket.”

And then my wife, hold on. OK. My wife pointed out the boutiques in that Toronto airport. Because there are plenty of places you can get a jacket right there. Go and get a jacket. I said, "No, we're on vacation." Oh, no.

And then I decided to do it a video. And I posted that to get my feelings out. And I also figured we had this podcast so we can talk about it. All right. Let's get people caught up to speed. All right. Let's get people caught up to speed.

You want to, you want to bring them up to speed? Should I bring them to speed? What do you want to do? I'll bring them up to speed. I have a lot of thoughts. OK. So Friday. We'll start with, well, Friday. OK.

Friday. It was a veritable circus in the Lindsey Clancy courtroom. Why was that? Because at long last, the jury had kind of thrown in the towel and informed the judge in the case that they were hopelessly deadlocked. Were they heavy-hearted? They sent to know.

Were they heavy-hearted? We are deadlocked. And we found out in a deadlock period that they were deadlocked 11 to 1. Now, initially, nobody really knew which way this split was. But it came out in one of the notes or in a conversation that the judge

might have had. He did end up talking to the jurors one by one. That one person, quote, unquote, had doubt. But according to the way this note was interpreted was refusing to follow the law. Put a little pin in that because I disagree with that characterization. Well, what he defense went with.

OK.

First of all, here's the first question.

I don't want to rely upon defense counsel. I don't want to rely upon anywhere. Where's that note? What does it actually say?

“I kind of watched the videos enough where I think,”

can we agree that it said from one-four person, when heard was a female, but again, I'm not even sure about that. A four person wrote a note saying that that one loan juror had doubts, but was refusing to apply the reasonable doubt instruction. Did you hear that same?

Not that detailed. It was that one juror had doubt. Didn't even say reasonable doubt. The one juror had doubt. Right.

Not necessarily reasonable doubt. Right. And I think it was actually Kevin Renington, the defense attorney, who was claiming that that juror was, quote, refusing to follow the law. Another jury member can't make that determination.

Oh, of course not. Let's listen to what happened in court. Saught number one. This is Renington accusing that juror of a lot of stuff. And I'll get your thoughts on it on the other way back.

I have never seen a situation like this where a four person,

on the jury is so courageous as to speak on behalf of 11 jurors and indicate that juror number, which I will not mention. And I quote, as made statements acknowledging doubt,

Clearly, Judge, we have a person who under their oath,

stood in front of you yesterday. When you did the individual of why, dear, and according to this information under oath, look you and me, I, in line. I don't think all of that content was in the note.

“I think that content came from the judge when he interviewed each juror one by one.”

I think that that might have been characterized by the four person or another person. I don't think so. I, I don't even, the actual note. I think that was the novel that he, that he had doubts. And then from that, the judge chose generously

to read the one instruction out of that thick packet that is the most favorable to the defense. If I'm still a prosecutor at that point, I'm livid about that. What are you doing, Judge? You're going to highlight the one thing that the defense lawyer should have highlighted more in his closing argument, which is part of one of my rants at a previous positively legal, because I didn't anticipate possibly these jurors wouldn't fully understand.

Now, again, I don't know if it would have made a difference with this juror.

I'm not saying it, and he got 11 to go on his side, so good for him. But this one juror, apparently, needed the instruction, read back to him, so the judge chose to do that. That was generous, right? Don't you agree? Yeah.

So that was more than generous, but apparently, wasn't enough. Judge didn't read it with enough verb. The judge didn't, and the judge's words didn't read it with a, with a brass band. Well, let's hear it. Let's hear it. I love this.

I love this, not too. Let's look at this. I would ask to use specifically, direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and re-instruct them on that forcefully. I think I did, did they yesterday, didn't I? Yeah. You did a yesterday, you did a soft, you didn't do it forcefully, and I'm asking.

Most judges would be so pissed off. I just got a brass band. I read the instruction as written by the SJC. The fact that they perhaps didn't give it my full inflection. I'm sorry about them.

I'm not an actor. I've just given the instructions. Well, sorry. The judge simply is that he's not sorry. Kind of glossing over the issue. The issue is this juror will not,

according to that note, apply the law of reasonable doubt.

“And that's why I've requested you know what I've requested.”

But it just in case the record, I am specifically not glossing over this issue. I have thought about this issue. Long and I know that it benefited the jacks, but the characterization that I'm glossing over it, trust me. That's not the situation.

Right. I don't think he's glossing over. He gave that instruction. That was very generous of him. Right.

And no juror said we need it red back judge. We're not clear on it, right? Right. So now the judge is highlighting a specific instruction. Imagine if it was the reverse. Let's say 11 was holding out for guilty.

And there's one innocent one. And the innocent one, you know, judge, we don't feel like he's taking this murder seriously. And he's not really looking at the elements close enough. Oh, okay.

Let me go read the elements of murder and highlight that again.

“You know, you think Reading didn't have a problem with that?”

Yeah, that would have been real bad. That would have been real bad. But but this dog and pony show wasn't over after that. Martin. It wasn't just a nice little seamless okay.

Well, we're going to have you hard. I guess we have to, you know, you did good. You tried your best. We have to declare a mystery. No, no, no, no, no.

Haven't been Readington was going to go down swinging. What does he do? He says judge before you declare a mystery. Before you make that official, I want to run upstairs. And I want to file an emergency appeal with the way they do it.

I guess is with one lone appellate judge. And stay a mystery. I mean, don't let it take place. Because I think this is so egregious. What is happening with this one juror who lied.

And there's zero evidence that this juror was lying. But we can talk about that. And so the judge said, I'm going to give you an hour, which juror didn't do about two or two and a half. Right.

Even three. But what do you think happened? Mark after he ran upstairs, you know, refusing to die on this bill. What do you think happened?

First of all, I'm critical of the defense lawyer for certain things.

I'm not for him being as zealous advocate. I'm actually glad that he did it. So nobody says, well, you didn't do everything to prevent this happening. He did everything. What he did do, and this is where I do take exception.

Bad. Calling out this juror.

“I want to know whether you feel the way that I do.”

And you don't have to. Shot six. Let's listen to it. Okay. They know that they were robbed by one man.

For whatever his agenda was. Who stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurists. That was so attentive, so beautiful, so wonderful. And listen to this evidence. And you can see how defeated they were sitting there.

And I got a funny feeling that they were going on for another week if they had to. So I hope that guy can sleep well. Okay. So here's the problem. All right.

He didn't mention him by name. But it's close enough in this day and age. There was only three men on that jury. Right. And then I heard that there was one that wasn't taking notes.

And apparently it got out that the one that wasn't taking notes wasn't the one who hung the jury up. So now you're down to two dudes. How hard is it for somebody to figure that out? And now this dude has to be careful. We're about his liberty, his life, everything, his family.

Because there's not jobs out there. There are not jobs. And it extends beyond this one juror who frankly he's going to be.

If he wants to consult with attorney saying, hey, look, this guy basically outed me in a situation where we were surrounded every day by a sea of pink shirts.

I don't know who's going to end up on my doorstep. I don't know who's going to try to across my wife and the parking lot of the pig league wiggly when she goes shop like. He's single handedly tainted the whole jury system. Because other people listening to this going to be like, you know what, next time I get a jury notice, I'm going to be out of town. I'm going to have a cold. I'm not doing it.

I'm not going to do my civic duty because I don't want to be involved in anything. Which is, which is bad enough. But the other thing with the way Kevin Readington, I will grant you. Zealous advocate, a hundred percent. But the way he treated this mistrial, the way he dragged it out on Friday.

When I know these jurors were tired, it was like, you know what? When you were a kid, did you ever play like a game where you know, you get cops and robbers and you got fake shot and you would go down like, oh, I'm dead. But then you would hop right back up, I'm not dead.

“Do you remember that? Like, I could do that all the time?”

How did you know? Did you talk to my sisters? Yes, that's what I would do very over the top.

And I was never really dead.

I just kept getting back up. Well, that was him. Which would have been all right, had he not made those major missteps by calling out this juror, taking to the microphone and doing that. I think was horrible. Even if he didn't identify him, people will know who he is.

I agree. I'm also torn because I'm a Zealous advocate and I'd be pissed off too if I was him. The question is whether he honestly, and it looked like he did, believed that this guy was just simply not following the law. I'm not convinced of that factually.

I'll discuss in my rant later today. You know, so he went off. He really did. And again, is it his concern at all for what the system is going to bear? Is that his problem to worry about what's going to come next? I don't know.

I'm sure there are some ethical rules that he violated. He did. Right, there's got to be something in Massachusetts law code of ethics that he violated.

“But what he couldn't do, I think I do agree that he did.”

Now imagine if instead of doing that, he sort of just sort of gracefully, first of all, not take the mic. But you can go to the mic and you can say, we did our best. And here we are.

And the jurors did their best. And now we're going to have a conversation with the prosecutor. And we're going to see what's going to happen next. We thank you all for your support and have a nice day, right? Go have your Scotch at the bar.

It's easier said than done though. He put his heart and soul. I've been in trials like that. It's very hard to do that, particularly when you think that that one loan juror is a stealth juror who made up his own mind.

Again, that's his interpretation. But you just raised something else. You exactly, but he accused this juror in his ridiculous,

it was never going to fly appeal of discriminating against Lindsey

Clancy because of her mental illness, which if you didn't figure that out, you didn't get that. When you picked this jury, then that's on you. Just like I could argue that Kevin Rettington could have lost this case, as you pointed out, because his closing argument sucked.

And if he didn't make it clear to these 12 slash 18 people,

that what reasonable doubt is and is not, then that's on him.

That's not on this juror, that is on him. But he didn't take any ownership of that whatsoever. And now, apparently, he wants Donald Trump to swoop in and part in his old child murder. Oh, yeah, yeah. Which has really got my backup.

“Could even do that, can the federal government mess with the state?”

I don't even think that that's a thing. No, no, he wants Trump, obviously. Let's listen to the side. Don't take John as word for it. Let's listen to the side.

Seven C, he's asking on the good morning America show for a pardon from Trump. Let's hear that. What's next for Lindsey? I'd like to say that perhaps Donald Trump, who felt compelled to speak out about this case, may very well Mr. President.

I would hope that you would consider this young lady type of person she is,

which he's been through and consider a pardon. Thanks for coming in this morning. I don't even know if that's even legal, John. I don't even know. Not possible.

Yeah, me neither. Before we end, I really do, I found on TikTok of all places. Some old video of Lindsey Clancy when she was a nursing, graduate, I think she just graduated from nursing school. Before she was bat shit crazy.

Oh, let's play that. I would be remiss if I'd been played at seven B. Let's listen to that. I'm Lindsey Musgrove. I'm a new graduate nurse.

And I recently did a lot of research about Catholic Karen Rimming in.

And I found that all of the leading pediatrics and obstetric foundations support this practice.

So there are a lot of benefits for both mother and baby. For the mother, you can start forming a routine with your baby. You learn to sleep in chunks as your baby naps. You have less anxiety about your baby being out of your sight. So you actually are able to sleep better and deeper than when you send your baby to the nursery.

It's so weird to hear her talk about babies. Yes, I mean, it's just crazy. No judgment. It just is. You know, it just is.

Well, this was before she was married.

“I think, so before she was a mother, right?”

I think my world must be her maiden name. Sure. And she seemed like a perfectly normal. Right. Right.

And at that point, you know, jurors didn't see that obviously, but it's quite interesting because she's obviously a whole different person. Now, she looks different. She, that we can all agree on. Yeah, that we can all agree on.

She is a different person today, for sure. In many respects. All right, John, there's so much more. We could do a whole hour on this. We won't.

You'll hear more in my rant later today. On this one. But the concern is now we got copycats. Egg. We're going to talk about that in just a moment.

Stick around. Welcome back to Positively Legal. Mark. Donna. Donna.

This did not take long. Okay. This did not take long. And Illinois is Illinois. It's okay.

Someone said you're dumb, but, but again. I was kidding. Keep the hate mail. I love John as she's very bright. Come on.

Okay. Woman named Cory Walsh was arrested last week for murdering her to your old son. Guess what she's claiming, Mark. She's also claiming that she was operating in a postpartum psychosis. Prosecutors alleged she was invested in the Lindsey Clancy trial.

Let's talk about it. Because apparently, not only was she invested in the trial. Look, a lot of people were. Whether you have a kid. Don't have kids.

A lot of people were. She was allegedly texting in a group text with her friends. Like they had a Lindsey Clancy group text hours before she hung her two-year-old in the basement. So, yeah. So, this is this is a horrible copycat situation.

And I have some theories on it. Okay. Look at that.

“Again, the parallels we just saw photo seemingly normal looking family, right?”

Just like how Rettington, the defense lawyer, showed photos of the Clancy family. Look, so normal, so loving. You know, there's a lot that we don't know for pulling out the Clancy playbook.

Is he supporting her? Do we know yet? Right?

Because it helped the Patrick was.

Are all the family members are the husband's parents supporting her too? You know, everything mattered in the Clancy case. I think it's a little too soon for that type of information. But I find it, I find it more than a little coincidental that here she is. She's, you know, invested in the coverage of the Clancy case.

Right? And herself has is the mother of four. She's got a young child. I don't know how common.

“I mean, are we going to have people coming out of the woodwork now that if you have a child under a certain age, you must be suffering from postpartum depression?”

I don't know how prevalent that's going to be. But something prompted her. And we don't know her history. We don't know what kind of medication she was on. We don't know that.

Right. Something prompted her.

And not just okay, Lindsey Clancy.

We know took exercise bands and and and and choke. Turn three children. We know that. Yes. This person allegedly hung her to your old from a, from a rafter.

She told did she told police that that kid was the devil and the anti-Christ. We start the analysis, John, with that's not normal behavior. Right. Of course. Let's start there.

It's not normal behavior. Secondly, we immediately look to motive. Did she have like in the Susan Smith case, somebody on the side. Let's say there wasn't anyone. Right.

Where she'd want to read herself for her from her kids. So she can then go and be with that person. Let's say there's none of that. Okay. What's the time?

Because I know people want to immediately say enough is enough. You're going to prison no matter what. We also know that postpartum psychosis is real. And it doesn't just affect Lindsay Clancy assuming she was going through that. Okay.

I got to stop you though. I got to stop you right there. Oh, okay. You could stop me. I agree that postpartum psychosis is real.

Right. What I disagree is that every case of postpartum anything postpartum depression. Regular old depression when you happen to have a bunch of kids at home. I disagree that that is automatically or frequently going to rise to the level of psychosis. Oh, I didn't say that.

But we cannot but you you haven't. But people out there cannot dilute the legal meaning of the of the word psychosis or the phrase postpartum psychosis. Correct. You dilute that. You are going to give people license.

Right. God damn children. I'm with you. But let's stay with this.

“Let's stay with this because I think I had you to go one step at a time.”

We're not just talking about postpartum depression. Many women go through it and they don't kill their kids. We're talking about it's very specifically which is what she's arguing postpartum psychosis. We heard from Dr. Resdening. We've raised our level of awareness about it.

It doesn't happen all that often, but it does happen. And it happens primarily to women after they've given birth typically within a few months. But in the case of Lindsey Clancy, 11 jurors thought that it could have been even eight months or so later. So and the world health organization up to a year apparently. So you've got that window.

This woman's well within the window. And if she had psychosis. Isn't she entitled to have a fair determination as to whether she knew right from all? Of course. She's entitled to a fair determination.

Right. She is coming from behind. However, when you start out the analysis that she was a disciple of the Lindsey Clancy fan club as it were. Are you making it out to be a pink lady already? I mean she was following the trial.

That she's probably, you know, wanted to be in the pink shirt lineup. Now she had, has had four children. Fortunately, she did not kill them all. She only killed one, the youngest one. Now does that mean that all of the children were devils?

And she just didn't get to the others was just this little precious little two year old child. Was that was that child? Just the quote unquote devil. We know now what people are going to do though, Mark. They're going to hire the same Lindsey Clancy experts.

They're going to make out like bandits. They're going to have the same blueprint, the same page from the playbook. Oh, I heard voices, right?

“We know that you have to hear voices in order for that to work.”

And they're going to, that's what they're going to hang their hats on them.

We're never going to know are we as a society, as a juror, as an attorney,

It's not like an x-ray for a broken bone. It's not like a blood test for some sort of cancer.

“And you have to rely on what the patient reports.”

Yes. That is a problem. You know what I don't know. You know what I don't know. And I don't think that you know either.

What?

Is the most important question when we analyze this case.

And I'm literally going to live chat GBT it right this second. And that is who's got the burden of proof in Illinois. Remember in Massachusetts, the burden was on the prosecutors once the defense raised it. It's critical. I don't even want to wait because I don't think you know.

You probably didn't look it up. Nothing wrong with that. Excuse me one second. Pause for a moment. Sing.

Sing a show tune while I look this up. Okay. So you're trying to find the burden of proof in Illinois improving insanity. Question Mark. I know.

I've never, I don't think anyone's ever done a live in Illinois. The defendant has the burden of proving insanity. She's losing. I'm telling you right now. She's losing.

You're going to go on, right?

Okay. So wait. So I'm telling you right now. So the defendant most states aren't like Illinois. I was going to say if I had a bet, I would have bet that.

Right. Right. Well, there you go. That changes everything. That's it.

Right. So. I don't know. Like what? The the parent where was the husband?

These are the things the nitty gritty that we need to get into. Where was the husband?

“What is the family relationship like like you said?”

I don't think this is a case where she was trying to kill her kids or she could move on. Because if that's the case, she would have killed all of them. She only killed one. I got to keep going back to the burden of proof. There's too many facts.

We don't know. But we do know the law. And I'm telling you right now. Lindsey Clancy would be in a prison cell for the rest of her life. If the burden of proof was not on the state.

On the prosecution on the Commonwealth. Because most jurors, including me as the 13th juror watching this thing. I can't say with certainty.

I would never bet my kids college fund that she definitely heard of voice.

And that she definitely had command hallucinations. And she definitely. I can't say that. All I can say with certainty is that when you apply the reasonable down structure to the facts, the state didn't overcome their burden to prove that she was saying that she knew right from wrong.

That she could conform her behavior to the law. And all I've been saying is both theories are equally plausible. Her theory and the prosecution theory. And if they're equally plausible, then who wins the defense in Massachusetts? Not in Illinois.

Not the hanging of her son. She's got to prove it, Janna.

“Do you think I agree, I disagree in that I think the prosecution in Massachusetts did meet their burden.”

But you know, I could be in the right order. You and the one lone guy. There's another case, another little, not copycat. But another case out of Colorado. Fortunately, no kids were harmed.

I think it's just worthy of mentioning solely because of the names of the players. Yeah. So believe it or not, there's another case involving the death of a woman who wins. Lindsey Barnett, 37. Who was claiming that her husband claims she was suffering from psychosis.

Her name is Lindsey. His name is Patrick. Pause for a second. We're not making this up. I swear to you, this happened.

It was in People magazine published August 2019. Excuse me, I have this year. What are you saying, oh, four? He looks wrote and put away wet right there. He's so judging.

He looked for, yeah, yeah, hard past. If you're looking in him on social media and you're kind of like considering whether to date him. Yeah, well, he'll be, you know, he's not available. He's not going to be dateable. So here's what happened.

She's dead. Yes. That was slit, he's claiming that she was in psychosis and killed herself. Right. He's the one in the orange jumpsuit right now because the investigators do not believe that theory from the initial investigation that they've done because of where the blood was.

She was found in the shower where they're throat cut. He is the one who called 911. But apparently, there was way more blood in the bedroom and on the bed and in dirt than a plant that was knocked over. Right. And any dainty, bloody footprint.

I don't exactly know what that. I'm going to be honest with you. And all the reports I've ever read in my life. I don't think I've read a dainty, bloody footprint. That's what you would leave, Jonathan.

Right. I would just slice it down. I'd push it down. I'd push it down to be mushy and thick.

Dainty. Yeah. And so they're not.

So the physical evidence in this case is not driving with she killed herself theory.

“But you mean like bruises all over her arms and legs apparently, right?”

Some of them appear to be defensive wounds. Yeah. That's not going to help this case. But again, did I mention his name is Patrick and her name is Lindsay? What are the odds?

Yeah. Very, very strange. That'd be like having another Lacy and Scott. Although there were two Scott Peterson defendants. Oh, I'm not familiar with that.

Oh yeah. Yeah. Wait, what? We're talking about my Scott Peterson, my family. But not accused of murder, culpable negligence in the Parkland shooting.

Yeah. Allegedly, they called him a coward of Broward of Broward County. It didn't go in to kill the killer apparently. And of course, after four years of my life, we got an acquittals on all 11 counts. But should have been the outcome.

We want to talk tiger, we want to talk tiger. All right. So we're going to switch gears for a minute, because in other news. Yeah. And really, Lindsay Clancy was, you know, taking up all of the airtime last week.

And rightfully so, this is a very important case for a million reasons, not the least of which is not.

I mean, yes, it's important to Lindsay Clancy. But the fact that we now have other women coming out of the woodwork and thinking that they can get away with murdering their children is going to be a problem for us moving forward. You made a great point, by the way. I mean, like a scary point in a good way. Those like this woman who hung her child who are studying this case, because I studied this case. I now know exactly what to say, what to say, how to act, what to do, what not to say.

You really did get some tremendous insight. And now you don't know what's real and what's not. And you're very difficult to find that out. But what we do know switching gears, Tiger Woods. Now let me go to bat for Tiger Woods.

“So Tiger as we all know, like I'm not a bit, are you a golf fanata?”

I think he lives in Florida. I believe he's probably your neighbor. Yes. Right. Yeah, we golf on some.

So that's what I thought. So, okay, now he does have a little bit of a history getting behind the wheel. You think? And having some accidents, which may or may not be caused by either intoxication or impairment. Yeah.

He's got I think this was number three over the course of his life. You pick up. No. All right. So now let me ask you this.

So now the prosecutor in this case ended up giving him a plea deal, not to a DWI or a driving liability impaired or verified drive. He didn't do that. He gave him a reckless driving. And the punishment is going to be five years of no driver's license. I want to ask you, though, because I'm not just that, by the way, hold on. I mean, there's, I don't have it in front of me.

But I would imagine there are many other penalties including fines and probation and lots of other stuff. You don't care. All right. No. I don't even think there's probation.

I thought this was just a five year license revocation. He's going to pay his fines or not even that. Okay. All right. Go on.

So here's my question, though, for you. Yes. So I'm in New York. Yes. Right.

In order to lose your license for five years on a similar charge, you would have to have three alcohol related convictions.

“So I want to ask you in Florida, what's the deal? Like, why is he losing his license for five years when this conviction is not an alcohol related conviction?”

This is a reckless driving. Okay. Reckless. So what where did they increase the license revocation? Yeah.

In this case, what say you? All right. So I do practice a lot amount, a lot of DUI. We call it DUI here, driving under the influence. And then it's either of alcohol or a controlled substance.

Mm-hmm. And then you can prove it either by impairment. Mm-hmm. They blew over the legal limit. Okay.

Or both. Right. And they had some proof issues here. I understand that. And it's our job as a defense lawyer assuming they got the goods on our client to see if we can get our resolution a plea bargain.

And it's not uncommon to start with a reckless driving as what we call a breakdown, a breakdown of the DUI. Okay. You got a bad deal. Right. Not bad, especially in a case like this.

Well, when is a five-year revocation attached to us? I'm getting it. So what prosecutors do is they try on the reckless driving to mirror what his potential penalties would be if it was a DUI.

And if you have a second DUI, let's see.

And he had some contact not too long ago.

I forget when his actual conviction was. But here's the other thing, John. It doesn't have to make sense. In other words, he just didn't want to DUI conviction. So if they were to say 10 years, they could say, "I will do it, but we want a lifetime revocation."

They could come up with whatever they want, John. I mean, that's, that's plain negotiation. And that's, and that's my point. So when people are out there saying, "Tiger was, oh, he got a sweetheart deal." No, he didn't.

“Because he agreed to five years of a license revocation when I think anybody else.”

It would have been less. Or the flip side of that is he don't have himself a private lawyer, right? I wish he had hired me. But he got himself probably a good lawyer. And that good lawyer is not available to everybody else, okay?

And maybe the average person would have been convicted, right? So, you know, no evidence. They had no evidence. No, hold on. We have a shot.

Hold on. Don't we have a shot? Let's, let's, let's look, whatever shot that is, let's play that of him. He's not. Huh?

Just play the shot. Play the shot. And the timer would start. Down, play the shot. On my phone.

And all of a sudden, boom. Jay, tell me what happened real quick. Yeah, I was looking down at my phone. Um, you know, look at cheating stations. And that can't help, boom.

One potato, two potato. What did he do? There's not even standard estimates. What is he doing? Right.

What is that?

I've never seen that before.

He probably complained that his legs are screwed up. So, we can't walk the line. He can't do the Robert Balanced Test. Most of them involved his. He's.

So. I mean, here's the question. Does he look impaired? And if not, because the pictures were the thousand words. If he doesn't look impaired, then they've got a tough case.

If you think that tiger looked bad there. Um, and that's just a little tiny clip of it. But they were not. They were not going to be able to prove. And he anything beyond.

They probably would not. I'm going to go out on the line. Probably would not have been able to prove reckless driving. Although he's an asshole for, you know, flapping his gums. Oh, I was looking down.

Oh, I was being negligent. Oh, I was changing the station and then both like that's stupid. You know, if you're not going to take the test. Keep your mouth shut. You have a right to remain silent.

Exercise it. We tell you that. I think it helped him all the time. I think it helped him.

“I think I think that him saying that that's what.”

Listen, the biggest fact against him in this case is that he flipped his vehicle. It's a horrible crash. And the best thing to argue, which would have came from me if I was representing him. He was distracted by looking at his phone. He gave it to them right then and there.

He knew to say that whether it was true or not. He said it right there and then it makes it more credible and believable. So now you've negated the driving pattern. What's next? He blew zero zero.

Apparently he said, sure. Oh, blah, blah. He blew zero. So now what's left is a result to give his urine. And so we'll say, well, that could have been from a narrative reasons.

He's a high profile guy. He does want people knowing he smoked pot two days ago, which has nothing to do with this case. Or what pills are in a system that may or may may or may or may not have affected him. I think they had a tough case. I think a good lawyer could have challenged this case successfully.

Well, he doesn't want to trial. But that's what Tiger Woods doesn't want a jury trial on a case like this. Right.

Because you're never going to be able to get a fair and impartial jury.

You're just not. But. But.

“So even though I think that he agreed to far too long of a license”

to revocation, remind me I have one more question for you. I also agree that when your Tiger Woods. You don't need your stinking license. It's it, you know, like the folk have to drive to work. Have to drive to the babysitter have to drive to school.

It's a big problem. Tiger Woods and be like, chauffeur. Oh, oh, dry. Yeah, which is what he should do, Janna. I'm going to disagree with you.

I think five years is a very appropriate. The guy has proven that his problem primarily is when he gets on the road. Let him not drive, Janna. Come on. I got to ask you something.

So one more practical question. I know it's not a sexy question. But in your state. Yes. He's got a license revocation for five years because of a reckless driving.

Is he entitled to a conditional license? Do you know that? So he can drive to and from the doctor. To and from, well, work is the golf course. So that would be.

I will answer it this way. This wasn't through DMV. This was through the judge ordering it. So he needed any special conditions like that. He would need to go to the judge who I would hope and pray would say, no.

Take an Uber or get a private car. But your privileges should be sustained for five years.

He is.

By his own admission, he drives while he, you know,

at least while he's staring at his phone and flips his car.

“I think that there was probably some stuff in a system.”

The guy probably shouldn't be driving. He's had injuries. He's not going to be. So. Well, we can end it there.

We can end it there. This hour goes by too quick. But you know what we're going to do. Oh, this is me. We're going to do my favorite part of the show.

Yeah. We come back. We're going to do our off the record rounds. But. Yes.

Before we do that. What are we doing? We're going to read an email. Oh, no. You got.

Oh, not that one. You're going to read that. Of the show. Well, we come back.

You're not going to want to miss this.

You guys. And if you have written Mark in email. Okay. If you have written Mark in email. And you are hearing the excitement in my voice.

Oh, man. You want to especially. No. Because it could do. Do not.

Hang out and go to another podcast. You don't want to hear this. Please. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Positively Legal.

“And it's time for us to go off the record.”

Just when we rant a little bit. But apparently, Jonna wishes to share with you. A private email that somebody sent to me. That I mistakenly chose to share with Jonna and the producer. Because I thought it was hilarious.

And apparently, Jonna thinks it's airworthy. Go ahead, Jonna. Please note my disdain and objection. Okay. First.

Let me thank you all for tuning in and listening. As Mark often says, We do read every email. So we have an email. Shoot out.

Shoot to our word that we want to read. I'll do it, Mark. Was it addressed to me? It was addressed to you? It sure was.

That me. That me begin. And we actually don't. Oh, the listener's name is Lucy. Lucy.

Love that name? Lucy. Lucy. Come on. All right.

Here's what Lucy said. Subject. Jonna. Ready? Email.

Good God, Mark. Stop interrupting. Stop interrupting Jonna. Oh, the time. Stop it.

You're doing it again. She's telling a story. You went to rub. She's making a point. You went to rub.

All caps. Stop. She is funny. Yes. Funny or than you.

“And you stepped on her speaking all the damn time.”

He's Lucy. I don't know who you are. But I love you. Keep the emails coming. Oh God.

Jonna, I get excited. I speak. Yes, I step over you. I try not to do it. Gotta keep the show moving.

Please, everybody. I love Jonna. She's great.

I always love to hear her thoughts.

So to the extent that I have stepped over you and will continue to do so. I apologize, Jonna. Okay. All right. All right.

Lucy. All right. You want to go? Do I go? We're going to rant.

Who's ranking first? Uh-huh. Uh-huh. You know, I'll go first. Okay.

Let me enjoy yours. Let me clean off. I don't interrupt your rant. I don't interrupt them. Give me credit for that.

You do not. And let me just preface this one for everybody listening. And for you, Mark. Normally, I'd like to be a little sarcastic and funny and a little, you know. Uh-huh.

Today, not so much. Because we are talking about the Lindsey Clancy trial. It's important. Historically, it's been important. Moving forward.

It's going to be important. So this rant is going to be much more serious. Okay. Socrates. Socrates was an ancient Greek philosopher who was famous for teaching not through answers.

But rather through questions, forcing students to define what they meant, exposing contradictions and pushing them to examine whether their beliefs actually held up logically. That teaching style is what's known as the Socratic method. And it's all the rage in law school or at least it was in my day. In real life, it worked like this.

A law professor would take a legal fact pattern and then challenge the students with hypotheticals. Often tweaking one fact at a time. The point was to guide the student to identify which facts actually matter where the legal line should be drawn. And whether the principle they are defending continues to make sense.

But Lindsey Clancy's to trial for the strangulation murders of her three beautiful children.

Chora H5, Dawson H3, and Calen just eight months. The legal premise set forth by her defense team was that this mother should not be held criminally responsible because at the time, she wrapped exercise bands around her children's necks. One by one, she was in the midst of a postpartum psychosis and cannot appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions. A pink shirt of fan club surrounded the courthouse daily in the very blue state of Massachusetts,

sharing shocking personal stories of how they too have motherhood moments that include homicidal thoughts apparently. #SameLinsey and #MeTooLinsey on TikTok says it all.

“As does the more than $1 million raised for this admitted child killer?”

Some of these fanatics were so over the top, it would have surprised a few to see them flinging panties

toward defense attorney Kevin Reddington as he mugged for the cameras and lauded Lindsey for being such a wonderful person.

But for that pesky 20 minutes were and she snuffed out three young locks. I've thought long and hard since the mistrial was declared last week and what truly devolved into a legal circus on its last day and had a bit of a stochratic, light bulb moment myself. There is one question I would love every Lindsey Clancy supporter to answer. And I mean really answer it.

What if Lindsey Clancy had been the nanny or the neighbor? Same woman, same alleged postpartum psychosis, same medications, same shitty mental health care, same voice commanding her to kill three children to quote, keep them safe. Same exact conduct. Except, instead of killing her own three children, the children she killed were birthed by someone else. What the reaction be the same?

With social media be flooded by pink shirts telling us how badly she'd been failed by the medical community.

“Would they be furious at prosecutors for putting her on trial in the first place?”

Would they be saying you just don't understand postpartum psychosis? I'm going out on a limb here and say probably not. Instead, they would want her to share a cell with the likes of Lauren Courtney and Yavlin or Tega, or better to be buried under bricks. And that exposes the problem with the unbending position that Lindsey Clancy should get a pass

because she was a mother suffering from mental illness. What exactly is that logic? That because she brought these kids into the world, she gets greater legal attitude for taking them out. Think about how ass nine that is.

If mental illness, including that which comes because of postpartum, legally excuses murder.

“Then it should excuse the nanny or the neighbor who kills someone else's kids too.”

If it doesn't excuse the nanny or the neighbor, and sidebar, the cases I cited, Lauren Courtney and Yavlin or Tega, were convicted of doing just that, killing other people's kids in a moment of claim to psychosis. Then what you are really saying is not that mental illness excuses murder.

You are saying motherhood does. And that is a very dangerous place for the law to go. Mental illness and legal insanity are not the same thing. The question is whether this defendant was so mentally impaired at the moment of the killing that she lacked the legal capacity

to appreciate the wrongfulness of what she was doing or to conform her conduct to the law. That is an extraordinarily difficult thing to measure. There is no insanity blood test, no psychosis thermometer. No machine that can travel backward in time until a jury

exactly what someone understood at the precise moment three children were being murdered. Experts can disagree, doctors can disagree, and they all did. Criminal responsibility cannot simply disappear because a defendant's story evokes enormous sympathy.

Three children are dead. The fact that the culprit gave them life cannot become the reason the law discounts their death. If Lindsey Clancy were the nanny, the babysitter, the neighbor, the teacher suffering from postpartum mental illness,

where their own three healthy children at home, I suspect this national conversation would sound very different.

And if that's true, maybe the debate was never entirely about mental illness.

to murder. Make no mistake. There shouldn't be one.

Motherhood is a duty, a privilege, a blessing,

but not an affirmative defense. I dare say, "Socrates, what agree?" Wow, Jonah. Very compelling. Thank you, Mark.

I mean, everywhere. I mean, everywhere. No, I know you do. His heart felt passionate.

“And the truth is, if somebody truly is mentally ill”

and suffering postpartum psychosis, like 11 jurors, probably found, then they really do. Legally get a free pass, because no matter who they kill, they don't know right from wrong, right? Are people prepared to extend this to those facts?

Probably not. Probably not. So really, it's not about that. Wow, brilliant, Jonah. Wow.

Very targeted. I loved it. Thank you. Now you. Okay.

I'm not me. Also Lindsey Clancy. So I was having lunch today. And someone said, "What do you think about what happened with the Lindsey Clancy case?"

I said, "What do you want to know? What do you want me to talk about?" Well, don't you think the judge screwed up? She asked, "Really?"

“Don't you think that that jerk screwed up should have been replaced?”

And I realized, "Goodness, I still need to talk about this." So let's do that.

First, I don't think the judge did anything wrong.

In fact, I think he was very fair to the defense. There was a final note that suggested that there was one jerk who had doubts, but wasn't willing to apply the reasonable doubt standard. Something like that. We don't have the note. But what it didn't say very clearly is that this person has declared

that in spite of the law given, he wasn't going to follow it at all. This was merely the four persons interpretation of what he was doing. So the judge did what the judge legally is allowed to do. And that has asked each jerk individually if they were willing to follow the law. The judge can't go any further nor do we want this judge to.

The judge can't say, "Hey, you." It's been a legend that you're not following a law. What are you thinking? What are you doing in there? That would be a miscarriage of justice all day long. And by the way, there's no Lindsay Clancy trial exception.

Everything they do in this case, they'll have to do it every future case. So again, think about it being your loved ones on trial. And you heard that the judge started tampering with one of the lone holdouts and questioning about what he or she was thinking and then trying to manipulate them. The judge can't.

“The judge did the only thing the judge can do.”

Will you follow the law? And every one of them said that they would. The judge went one step further to help the defense. And that was reading the reasonable doubt instruction. Judge didn't have to do that, but the judge did it.

And the defense suggesting that he didn't do it with the brass band or somehow doing it in a more dramatic way trying to help the defense that's absurd. And he knows that. The judge did what the judge should do and the judge should read it very neutrally. And he sent the jurors back.

And while it wasn't the outcome that I wanted, I am here defending that lone jurors right to stick to his guns. Only he knows if he came in there with some hidden agenda,

like a stealth juror who says no matter what I'm never going to follow the law

and spite of telling you that I will, or maybe he closed his mind down, midway through deliberation, said no matter what I'm not going to follow up. I don't have any evidence of that. I don't know that's what he did. What I think what probably happened was he applied the law.

He had some doubts. You're allowed to have doubts, but were they reasonable doubts that rose to the level where he's got to say, not guilty, like the rest of them. And he personally didn't feel that way.

Well, I disagree with him. I would like him to have found a different outcome, but he has that right. And I will fight all day long for his right to stick to his guns. Us defense lawyers.

We've been benefited numerous times by that one or two lone, holdout jurors who don't want to go along and convict. So it works both ways to suggest that he did something wrong, but it works that he shouldn't sleep at night. He's going to have difficulty sleeping at night.

That's uncalled for. And worse, the impact on future jurors. That's not good at all. Where jurors now are worried about what they're supposed to vote.

No way. So what I would say is, again, not the outcome that I wanted, but the judge, he did what he needed to do. This lone holdout, assuming he was following the law

he did what he was supposed to.

And I call that justice. Bravo. I'm proud of you, Mark. Yeah. Yes.

It's just what came out in the moment. I feel very strongly about it, John. I am very proud of you for that. Yeah. Yeah.

“Recognizing, I'm glad you're not in the camp of the people”

who think that this lone juror should be tired and feathered.

Well, very proud of you for that. He should, if he refused to fall the law, all that kind of stuff. But we don't have that evidence. We don't know that. Right?

We don't know. The defense attorney spun it that way, but we don't know that. I don't know that. I can't wait to see if he's willing to do an interview.

Boy, he'd get big money for that. We do want to hear him. You know, there's a hero in many, in many networks who seem to support his theories. You know that there are hundreds of reporters sliding into his DMs or figuring out who he is. First, they got to figure out who he is, right?

Right. They don't really know, but you know that they're going to know.

“So that's what we're going to hear from them.”

You think so? Like, like, we need to hear from one juror. Oh, we will. We will, right? They're holding out for the, for the big box.

Okay.

Well, John, a great closing. I always look forward to that.

I really appreciate it. And yeah, grateful. It's just, I'm just grateful to you. I'm grateful that I get to do this show. Each week, I'm grateful for our jurors, our viewers, right?

Who are judging us like jurors? Yes.

“I'm finding that I step on your toes when you speak too much.”

And you, what are you grateful for? I am, this is easy. This week is easy. I am grateful for Lucy. I am so grateful for her.

I'm going to be framing this and hanging it. Oh, my God. Fair enough. You have my undying, gratitude and affection. Fair enough.

All right, well, we thank all of you for joining us. We really can't do this without you. You are extremely grateful. Please write stuff in the comments. You agree with us.

You disagree with us. You don't like the way we're acting. You do like the way we're acting. It's okay. We love it.

What people think of me is not my business. I'm fine with it. Anyway, we look forward to seeing you next week. I hope you all choose to have a wonderful week. Take care.