INSTANT REACTION: Mistrial Declared In Lindsay Clancy Case

The Matt Walsh Show

The episode covers the declaration of a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case, where Clancy was accused of murdering her three children. The host

Key takeaways

• A mistrial was declared after a lone male juror refused to yield to pressure from nine women on the jury who wanted to acquit Clancy.

Main topics

• Lindsay Clancy murder trial
• Mistrial declaration

Notable quotes

"We simply cannot live in a country when murder is considered justifiable because a woman claims that she was insane at the time."

Conclusion

While the mistrial falls short of justice, it represents a rare moment where one rational juror

Transcript preview

Speaker 3 (0:00) The Lindsay Clancy trial has reached a conclusion, for now anyway, with a mistrial. And I will give my instant reaction and analysis of this news, which comes to us after an absolutely bizarre and unprecedented string of events that are almost hard to believe. But the only reason that we ended with a mistrial at the end of all this madness is simply because of the actions of a lone, heroic male. juror, as we now know. A lot of people speculated the jury of nine women and three men would break down to men against women. Well, it turns out we were right in assuming that every single woman on the jury would want to acquit a mother who brutally slaughtered her children. But we were wrong to assume that all three men would stand strong for justice and common sense. As it turns out, only one man did. And because of this one man, Clancy did not get away. Not entirely. Not yet, anyway. with brutally murdering her three children. Apparently, only one male member of the jury was willing to reach the obviously appropriate verdict in this case, which is that there is no excuse, either legally or morally, for the premeditated and systematic execution of your children. Based on all the information we have, this lone male juror was able to withstand a campaign of public intimidation by the defense attorney in this case, as well as the the jury foreperson, the nine women on the jury and the two other men were apparently not only willing to absolve Lindsay Clancy of these barbaric murders, but they were also willing to pressure the lone holdout when he didn't agree with them. And thank God he fought back. We simply cannot live in a country when murder is considered justifiable because a woman claims that she was insane at the time. It's an incoherent standard, by the way, the insanity standard, as we'll discuss in a moment. And at least for now, there's still a possibility that Lindsay Clancy will face justice for what she did. We'll have to hear from the state about if they're going to refile the charges and what the charges will be. And hopefully they do. And the thing is, if you had asked me a week ago, I would have said that a mistrial in this case, instead of a guilty verdict, would be a travesty and a tragedy. And it is. I mean, it still is. But now that we know that we were one sane member of the jury away from a full acquittal. away from a woman admitting that she murdered her children and waltzing away scot-free, the mistrial seems, in that case, by comparison, like something of a win, or at least closer to a win than the alternative. Clancy's odious defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, did everything in his power to corrupt the process and force the acquittal by any means necessary. When the jury returned today to say that they were still deadlocked, that the lone male juror was not intimidated by Reddington or the foreperson, Reddington initially demanded the jury be sent back to continue deliberations. In other words, he wanted the judge to tell the jury for a third time that he would not accept a hung jury. And of course, that would be coercive and inappropriate. So the judge declined. He announced his intent to declare a mistrial. And then Reddington walked all over the judge and demanded an hour to file an emergency appeal before the trial was finalized. Because you see, apparently when you don't get the verdict you want, you get to demand that an appeals court remove whoever is on the jury that disagrees with you. You get to claim that he's not following the law because he came to a different conclusion about the case. And that logic makes perfect sense to Lindsay Clancy's lawyer and to the brain rotted legions on TikTok and a lot of people in the media, too. And that's where the judge should have denied the appeal and ended the circus for good. But instead, you know, he gave him an hour to do this appeal on the absurd grounds that he you know, that the lawyer didn't get the verdict he wants. And so he gets to appeal it. And as if the appeal wasn't nonsensical enough on its face, it somehow gets worse. So Fox News obtained the emergency appeal that was filed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. This, again, is from the defense. This is their appeal to try to stop the jury from being, to try to stop the mistrial. And what they argue in this appeal, and I'm not making this up. They argue that the lone juror is engaging in a line of reasoning which, quote, reflects a bias against those who are suffering from debilitating mental illness, a protected category under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Yes, the defense seriously argued that by voting to send a woman to prison for killing her children, he was discriminating against the disabled. Speaker 3 (4:45) If you send a disabled person to court, then you're discriminating. I mean, to send them to prison, you're discriminating against them, I guess is the logic. It's a total farce, but this is a farce that was allowed to play out in court. The whole process was stalled just to allow all of this to happen. And of course, all for the sake of shielding a mass murderer from accountability. which, I mean, you could point out is the job of the defense attorney, but even so, it's a farce. And this is a recurring problem, by the way, in our legal system. Whenever the most loathsome and obviously guilty defendants are put on trial, given enough time, the legal process itself inevitably becomes a farce. It's very difficult to prosecute the dregs of society in an orderly and predictable fashion for the simple reason that the worst of the worst are very adept at finding ways to manipulate the system. It wasn't too long ago that Somali fraudsters literally delivered a $120,000 cash bribe to a juror just before deliberations began in an attempt to secure a not guilty verdict. They blew up the whole trial in the process. This is a big challenge that prosecutors face when they're confronted with overwhelmingly evil defendants who tend to attract very depraved lawyers. As the saying goes, you know, you can't wrestle with a pig without everyone getting dirty. But even with this expectation in mind. especially over the past few days, the Clancy case devolved into a truly staggering, unprecedented display of corruption and lawlessness and moral rot. Yesterday, as well as this morning, before we even get to the preposterous last-ditch appeal, Clancy's lawyer engaged in an overt campaign of mafia-like jury intimidation in an attempt to secure an acquittal for his client. John Gotti would look at this trial and blush at the sheer audacity of Clancy's lawyer, whose name is Kevin Reddington. For whatever reason, Reddington was allowed in the middle of deliberations to publicly accost a specific juror and tell the entire world that there's going to be an investigation into this person's statements during deliberations. And the only reason for this investigation is that the juror all by himself appeared to be intent on convicting Clancy for the murder of her children. which is something that I'm sure this member of the jury figured he had the right to do. Like he's allowed to come to his own conclusion, or so he thought. Today in open court, before the jury came back and a mistrial was declared, Reddington made it clear that the holdout on the jury is a man. So he told everybody that, which is a very specific piece of information because there are only three males on the jury. And during the same hearing, Reddington berated the judge for failing to intimidate the jury. He wanted the judge to scold them for not following the law, meaning not returning the verdict that he wants. And understand exactly what happened here and how unseemly and corrupt it is. Let's go back to the scene in the courthouse yesterday during the sixth day of deliberations in the case. And by this point, the jury had already sent two notes to the judge indicating that they were deadlocked. And in response to these notes, the judge followed established procedure by telling the jurors to return to the jury room and try to reach a verdict, if at all possible. This is how the system works. It's not unprecedented. It is really stupid. But this part, the system does work this way. The jury says they're deadlocked. They're sent back. They say they're deadlocked again. They're sent back again. You know, this is how the system works. It shouldn't work this way, in my opinion. If a jury says that it's deadlocked after hours of deliberation, sending them back is just asking them. Even if you say you aren't asking them this, you are asking them to bully the minority into caving. If you don't want the minority to be bullied into caving, then why would you force them to stay in deliberations after they've considered the facts and deliberated and made up their minds? I mean, it's pretty absurd. But in any case, if the jury had come back yesterday with a third note insisting that they were still deadlocked, as they did today, then the judge would have declared a hung jury. That's generally how it works, because under our Constitution, the judge is not allowed to hold the jury hostage indefinitely. He can hold them hostage, and he did in this case, but there's an endpoint eventually. And the jury in this case almost certainly knew that. They were not sequestered, so they had access to the Internet. They would have known that with just one more note, they could go home and return to their families. But instead of sending another note indicating that they're deadlocked, the foreperson, who's apparently a woman, on the jury instead sent a note telling the judge that a particular juror wasn't following the law on reasonable doubt. And somehow this