Jury begins deliberations on Lindsay Clancy case

[Proud90sKid]

Lindsay Clancy killed 3 of her children. She is arguing that as a result of postpartum psychosis, she was not sane at the time of the killings and therefore not guilty of murder. Both sides have rested and the jury is deliberating. Thoughts?

[Dude111]

She might just be trying to get out of murder!!!

Its very sad...

[Proud90sKid]

Originally Posted by Dude111

She might just be trying to get out of murder!!!

Its very sad...

Or she was legally insane and this isnt murder at all. Reninds me of Andrea Yates' case, except there were stronger indicators of insanity in that case(her husband believed in a strange religious practice of having as many children as nature allowed regardless of impact on the mother and her mental health struggles were present but relatively de-prioritized before the killings).You can be mentally ill though and still be found guilty. True insanity requires not being in the state of mind to evaluate actions ethically,legally, or logically. It is rare, but it definitely happens that a person is determined to have been too mentally ill to evaluate their actions. If this is true insanity, she doesnt belong in prison.

[Dude111]

Ya its hard when we dont know isnt it??

[Mindfulness.]

Let's see what the results are...

[Face Up.]

It's a tragedy that these children had to die. I did read that she tried getting help numerous times from numerous sources and she was brushed off or not given adequate help. I think I believe her that she was in post partum psychosis at the time of the murders and needs a hospital, not jail.

[Proud90sKid]

Well...looks like the trial is likely going be a failure. Jurors have told the judge twice now that they won't be able to reach an unanimous verdict. Looks like the judge gave them the "Allen charge" today which basically means the jury got told something like "if you arent agreeing with the rest of the jury...consider re-evaluating your perspective.....and "nobody knows if another jury would be better". It is a formality meant to encourage a verdict. But it is also a giant glowing sign that the case is on its way to a mistrial due to hung jury. There is a limit to how many times the judge can issue this directive to the jury before the jury has to consent to further deliberation. What does a mistrial for this mean? It means that the case wouldnt be over and either the prosecution retries the case entirely (likely) or strikes some plea agreement with Clancy. I think mistrial will likely be declared on Friday-right before the labor day weekend and after two more full days of deliberation.The jury seems pretty convinced that there wont be resolution of the deadlock. They didnt say they were "struggling", but two days in a row now have said they simply arent going to reach a verdict. But there is a still a small chance the jurors defy the odds and reach a conclusion.

It is a very complicated case and I dont even know what I think of it myself, so I cant say this is surprising. They can retry her as many times as they want, but eventually the courts will tire of this a d demand that the prosecutors explain why a verdict will be reached in a new trial. Usually defendant goes free if the prosecution cant come up with a good reason but they can still face trial in the future if new evidence comes up. But, Im not sure what it would mean for a case where the jurors are split between guilty and not guilty by insanity.

[Dude111]

I wonder if it will be dropped?

[Proud90sKid]

Originally Posted by Dude111

I wonder if it will be dropped?

Not a chance at all they dont retry the case or try to negotiate an agreement. Would take several mistrials for them to even consider. I cant think of even a single instance where that happened in an insanity case.

You have to understand that: whether she is guilty or not guilty (by reason of insanity/lacking criminal responsibility)- dropping it completely wouldnt conform to American justice standards.Prosecution wants to avoid that outcome more than they want to avoid an insanity verdict. If that was the only other option, it would be better for the prosecution to not contest or even assist in the defense's argument for insanity. At least that way she isnt just home free and under no supervision. While they will likely retry this again, a second mistrial could push the prosecution to push for a plea agreement. That would involve some dropped charges, but that is not the way the prosecution is currently heading- they have indicated that they are wanting a retrial if there is a hung jury. Not guilty by reason of insanity usually means forced confinement in a mental hospital for an extended period.

[Dude111]

Ya I dont think they will be able to prove anything so your right,they might condemn her to a mental place..

[Proud90sKid]

Mistrial declared

[Dude111]

So does that mean she goes scott free??

[Proud90sKid]

Originally Posted by Dude111

So does that mean she goes scott free??

Absolutely not. The charges and indictment still exist. A mistrial doesn't erase that. However, it is undecided whether they actually retry it. She will remain in pre-trial psychiatric hold as long as those charges exist. However, prosecution doesn't have unlimited time. If there is no motion towards trial, then the defense could file for dismissal on the basis of violating right to speedy trial.The mistrial immediately restarted the ticking of the speedy trial clock. If they don't move forward and the defense doesn't waive right to speedy, that means that it can't be tried again. In that case, there will instantly be a motion for involuntary civil commitment and there are safeguards in place that prevent her from leaving in the interim time between charges being dropped and the motion for civil confinement being approved. This all would just mean that she would essentially become a hospitalized and strictly monitored psychiatric patient indefinitely rather than a hospitalized pre-trial inmate. If the state moves forward with trial, then I think there is a good chance that the defense will waive the right to a speedy trial so that more time can be spent on pre-trial proceedings, negotiations, and building a revised case. That would make the case drag on for quite a while (long enough that it temporarily falls out of collective public discourse).

There are a few other things that could be done.
1) new jury trial on reduced charges (such as manslaughter or second degree murder). From the prosecution's perspective: perhaps a jury would be less inclined to "give her a break" if she was already given a break by having charges brought down to manslaughter.
2) plea deal (either a full guilty plea to a lesser charge like manslaughter or because the jury was so close to an acquittal there is a chance that they could do a special kind of "plea deal"(technically a bench trial where the prosecution doesn't argue against-it is called a stipulated bench trial) where the prosecution doesn't contest her "not guilty due to lacking criminal responsibility" plea and instead asks the judge to simply enter that as the final verdict-which would carry the same weight and consequences for her as a jury finding of not guilty due to lacking criminal responsibility (ie. still not going home))
3) non-stipulated bench trial. In this case she waives her right to a jury trial and allows a judge to decide the verdict while the state argues against her.
4)they simply drop the charges- in which, again, her confinement simply becomes classified on paper as civil rather than criminal, but she will still be just as confined.

A lot of it depends on how hard the state wants to push for the dubious possibility of a guilty verdict.

I personally think that having a judge simply rule not guilty by reason of insanity through a stipulated bench trial is the best outcome. It gives a lot more closure than simply dismissal or dropping of charges (because it is a formal ruling that she actually did do the act, but is not criminally responsible due to insanity)...personally I think there is enough reasonable doubt and this is the correct verdict....and it is cleaner,quieter, and quicker than a drawn out jury trial.

Patrick probably does not want another trial-particularly a jury one. I know I wouldn't. She admitted it, but there are still people blaming him and acting like he must have manipulated her into believing she did it. I certainly wouldn't take it lightly that so many people in the public are blaming ME for killing my kids when I had nothing to do with it. He is a victim and there would be outrage if the genders were reversed and people were blaming her. Men get blamed and slandered and it's totally unfair, but it is what it is I guess.

[Face Up.]

I definitely don't think things should be dropped entirely, but I do agree with her possibly being involuntarily committed into a psychiatric hospital.

[Dude111]

It seems like thats all they will be able to do since I dont think they will be able to prove this...

[Proud90sKid]

Disregard anything I said about a bench trial in the previous comment. I was completely wrong. In Mass. ,you are ineligible for bench trials if the charge is first degree murder due to it being a capital offense. So, that complicates things. I think that one juror really messed things up.

But, Patrick's lawyers are saying that another trial would be traumatic. Given the 11:1 ratio, that could perhaps result in them not retrying the case and giving civil commitment instead. Again though, it all depends on how hard the state wants to push for a guilty verdict.