Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Judge Gives Defense Chance To Appeal Before Declaring Mistrial. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired September 04, 2026 - 12:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[12:30:00]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. No, I mean, it has become the thing, I think, to your point, like, I would hope people can have the ability to see that there are a lot of different parts of this, and it is very complex. And there are multiple different conversations, all of which I think would be good to be having about the elements in this case, but aren't great if they're just putting people into corners where they just want to yell at each other, which is kind of an evergreen sentiment.

All right. Coming up, we are going live to the Plymouth courtroom where the judge could decide the fate of the Lindsay Clancy murder trial any moment now. And if you have a question about the case, email it to cnnallaccess-questions@cnn.com. CNN experts are taking those questions and comments right now on CNN All Access.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:35:19]

MATTINGLY: We are following the breaking news in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. Any moment now, the court will be back in session after a stunning turn this morning. After seven days of deliberations, the jury told the judge it could not reach a unanimous verdict, still could not reach a unanimous verdict. Then came this exchange, ending with a dramatic announcement from the judge.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE WILLIAM F. SULLIVAN, PLYMOUTH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT: And the question is, it is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to. My -- well, let me ask what is the party's position in regards to that question?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your Honor, from the Commonwealth's (ph) perspective, since the Tuey instruction has already been given, and then there was lengthy deliberation after that, I think that it would require a mistrial at this point.

SULLIVAN: Attorney Reddington?

KEVIN REDDINGTON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Your Honor, my understanding is that this court has the discretion to have the jury sent back for the second time. The first time that there was a report, we did not treat it as a report of deadlock. We did not instruct them under Tuey. We did not give them soft Tuey. We didn't give them anything. We just sent them back to deliberate.

So, technically, we have one report of deadlock that, Your Honor, gave the Tuey-Rodriguez charge to I believe under the statute, as well as the case law, this court has the ability to send the jury back. The fact that that jury foreperson wrote very unusually, it is with a heavy heart that we are unable to come to a decision. Based on the earlier questions that we have, I think that it would be a sound and a wise decision for this court to send it back under the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SULLIVAN: Well, I would find that under case -- Massachusetts case law and statutory law, the jury did not ask to be sent back which would be a possibility if they had requested it to be sent back to them. But under the statute and the case law, I don't feel I have any choice but to declare mistrial.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: But the defense pushed the judge to stop from ruling this a mistrial, which led to this announcement.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REDDINGTON: We're asking for his time to file a single --

SULLIVAN: Right.

REDDINGTON: -- justice appeal for this travesty. That's what I'm asking for.

SULLIVAN: So you're asking for emergency stay at this point?

REDDINGTON: Yes. And the jurors don't have to come back tomorrow. They can be told -- they don't even have to come back if I lose the motion. But if I win the motion, then obviously they would have to come back Tuesday.

SULLIVAN: I'll -- if you want to go up and petition to the SJC for a stay, I'll give you an hour.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: That hour is up now about five minutes ago, which means an announcement on Lindsay Clancy's fate is likely imminent. We are told prosecutors are back in the courtroom now.

I want to go straight to Laura Coates, CNN's Laura Coates. Laura, as this has all been playing out, what are your expectations given the kind of uncertainty and surprised twists and turns we've seen, not just over the course of last couple weeks, but just in the last hour?

LAURA COATES, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: What a difficult case for this jury to have five different options, Phil, anywhere from first degree murder all the way down to not guilty when they began by only having the two, not guilty by reason of criminal lack of responsibility or talking about the guilty by reason of having that criminal responsibility.

Now they have five options and it has proved to be an insurmountable hurdle for this jury. One would expect a mistrial to be declared. They only had an hour to ask for a stay, but the stay is largely based. It's a fancy way of saying, hold on, everyone, let's put a pin on this. Can I have more time to investigate? Can I ask this judge to probe this particular juror who they believe was not following instructions? But the judge found that that person was a little bit deeper.

And here we know that this has been days and days of deliberation over a week now, and they're coming against a weekend, which frankly, Phil, is oftentimes the harbinger of a exhausted jury, let alone a holiday weekend. We knew that would be against them either way, but add to that the emotional strain here.

And remember, it is up to these jurors. They are the fact finders. They are the ones who weigh the credibility. And if they have determined that they cannot come to a unanimous decision, the judge is unable to continue to force their hand if he's exhausted all remedies.

[12:40:03]

MATTINGLY: Yes. The use of heavy heart in the note, the way the note was worded seemed to put a definitive end to what they had been trying to do for 30 plus hours. Laura, can I -- you mentioned something that I want to follow up on, which is this request for a stay. Is this something that gets granted? Is this -- you seem to be thinking it's very unlikely. Is there precedent for something like this actually working?

COATES: Well, normally a stay. And just to be clear, we're talking about appealing to a higher court. Usually you can only --

MATTINGLY: Yes.

COATES: -- appeal once there's a final decision, as in a verdict happening. A mistrial or a jury that is totally deadlocked is normally not appealable, but they're asking the stay to be about what the judge had within his own discretion. Remember, they wanted this judge to ask further questions because the defense council believed that the jury -- that one particular juror was a problem for the rest of the jury.

They didn't give great amount of detail in terms of the exact why, nor do they likely know all the details. They know that there is a deadlocked juror. You can almost imagine that Norman Rockwell painting of one juror at the end of a long deliberation table, arms folded.

If that's what happened, that juror may have every right not to come to the same conclusion as long as they are following the instructions of the court. And so, one thing that a judge can do to try to preserve their own ruling and avoid having an appellate process undermine it is to couch it in language that shows that it was their own firsthand observation, their own particular assessment based on their interview of a particular juror, not some error of judgment in a rule of law.

And that can be helpful in preventing the stay. But I think you picked up on exactly the right part, Phil. Heavy heart is an understatement here. You've got three children, five, three and eight months old, who their mother has admitted to strangling with an athletic band.

The question before this jury was whether she was criminally responsible for it or there were different degrees of intent and responsibility. So this is a case that it began with the only two options being was she guilty and had premeditated and intended for this to happen and was calculated and manipulative, or was she not criminally responsible as she has said that she had commanding voices telling her to do this.

And all of her cries for medical attention and mental health intervention fell upon deaf ears of a system that failed her. These two different choices for this jury is why they have this heavy heart and mind. But you should have heard the medical examiner describe what happened to the children. You should have heard the father, the now ex-husband of her.

You should have heard even the defendant's own mother and relatives speaking about this. There was -- this is not an easy case. We knew it would not be an easy case in terms of the experience of having to deliberate and sit through this trial. But now we see that giving jurors five separate options where they have to go through every single element to decide, that is even harder.

MATTINGLY: It's such a great, like, I cannot fathom being in that situation, being one of the 12.

Robert Hirschhorn and Donte Mills are back with us now. And Robert, to that point, like what Laura just brought up, the Rockwell painting, which I think is like such a great snapshot, not of what we know is going on, but I could definitely see that being kind of the dynamic here. Walk people through, like what is the jury doing right now?

ROBERT HIRSCHHORN, JURY & TRIAL CONSULTANT: Yes, well, it's kind of reminiscent of 12 Angry Men, except I've dubbed this 12 pissed off jurors. Here's what's going on. They're sad. I'm sure there's tears that are flowing back there. There's anger. There's the entire range of emotion because jurors, as Laura said, they really do take their responsibility seriously, that's why it's called jury duty, right, not jury vacation.

And they really do want to do a good job. And, look, I have a lot of admiration for this jury. I promise you, none of your viewers, none of your listeners would want to trade places with this jury because this is a lot of work that they had to put in. It's a lot of emotional distress on them.

Here's the other thing that's really interesting, Phil. If the judge had said to the jury when they sent out the last note, if he had the authority to it, if he had the discretion to say, I want you to continue deliberating. If you're not able to reach your verdict today, we'll break at our normal time, 4 o'clock, and we'll take Monday off because it's a holiday, and we'll see you all back here on Tuesday.

I think there would have been a really good chance that that one holdout juror would have said at that point, OK, I'm done. I want out. Fine. I'll vote with the rest of you all. But that's not what happened. And now we have to stay.

I don't think it's going to be successful. But, look, Kevin's a cagey old trial lawyer. If anybody could pull it off, it's somebody like him.

[12:45:08]

MATTINGLY: You know, Donte, from the lawyer perspective, we're at the -- we're past the one hour mark right now. What is happening right now?

I think we lost Donte's audio. We're going to try and get that back. Laura, you know, it feels like every eye in the country is on this courtroom right now, has been on this courtroom for the last several weeks. The case is really captured with extraordinary intensity, a conversation and a moment right now. What do you -- if this is declared a mistrial, where do you think that conversation goes?

COATES: (INAUDIBLE) and triggered a conversation about not only our health care system, about postpartum, about mental health. And this will continue, maybe not just in the court of public opinion, but it will also continue in a civil case because there is an ongoing civil case that's happening where medical providers who were treating Lindsay Clancy have been sued.

There is an active litigation against several of them. And so there is that ongoing case, not yet a trial, if it gets to that point. But remember, if there is a civil trial, it's a much lower burden of proof. It's no longer beyond a reasonable doubt. And it's one of those cases where the defense attorney wanted from the jump. It should be known that he was putting the health care system on trial.

As much as Lindsay Clancy is in that defense seat, they wanted to be sure that this jury was questioning all the instances in which she tried to get help and they believe fell on deaf ears. But these are very difficult conversations. If you were just to see, we've been carving us on all access since the very beginning.

And we've been posting people's social media reactions. And we're seeing everything online as well. We're so interactive in that way. And we see the gamut from some people who are incredulous that this could even be debated. But then there are others who are talking about this as an issue of self-awareness of our own health care system.

And you see a number of people outside the courtroom dressed in pink who are demonstrating their support, if not for Lindsay Clancy specifically, but for the discussion on postpartum psychosis and depression and mental health more broadly. But for these jurors, if I'm the prosecutor in this case, which is what they tried to do, I want to take it from the general and I want to make it very specific. This is not a case about every person who's ever experienced postpartum mental health issues or psychosis or diagnoses. It's about this woman and what she chose to do. And they were very clear -- they say, according to prosecution, chose to do. They wanted to be very clear that they do not want this to be some sort of pretextual acquittal of her behavior in an effort to have a larger conversation.

So, you know, it's a very tough case, Phil. And but it is -- it's a good thing that it is sparking the conversations that so many people have wanted to have for a long time about raising awareness of what the experience of a woman who's given birth is, can be.

MATTINGLY: Yes. The degree to which the conversations are happening in like isolated court, like running in parallel with one another. I would hope that we can try and merge them at some point to have full conversations. I know you guys have been covering it, watching it all play out. Your conversations have been invaluable as you've watched every stage of this.

All right. Stay with me, Laura. We are eagerly waiting to hear what's happening inside that Massachusetts courtroom. We will return there live next. Stay with us as we take a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:53:33]

MATTINGLY: Any moment now, court will be back in session in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial after a stunning turn this morning when the jury told the judge it still could not reach a unanimous verdict. At any minute, we could learn Clancy's fate and if a mistrial could stand, leaving the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a chance to retry the case. We're told prosecutors are back in the courtroom right now.

CNN's Jean Casarez is outside the courthouse in Plymouth along with lawyer Donte Mills and Jury and Trial Consultant Robert Hirschhorn. Jean, what is the feeling outside the courthouse right now as we all wait for what happens next?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Just anticipation. What is going to happen next? We don't know. And you're right, Phil, we have confirmed that the two assistant district attorneys that tried this case, they are in the courtroom as well as the elected district attorney for Plymouth County, Massachusetts, also in that courtroom.

The family members of Lindsay Clancy were allowed to go into that courtroom. And they, of course, ahead of the public or the media. They always sit almost immediately right behind Lindsay. The media is still in the hallway, but no sign of Kevin Reddington.

They have not seen him at all. They don't believe he's in the courtroom. They haven't seen him come to go into the courtroom. So we are at a standstill right now. Judge, obviously waiting until all parties are present to convene this court session to see what will happen next.

MATTINGLY: Yes. And again, an hour was given for the emergency appeal --

CASAREZ: All right, we have just learned --

MATTINGLY: Go ahead.

[12:55:03]

CASAREZ: Phil, we have just learned that Kevin Reddington just walked out of the courtroom. So conceivably, he has been in the courtroom because no one saw him enter the courtroom. So he just walked out out of the courtroom right now. I don't know if that is for business that he must conduct or if he's just walking out of the courtroom. But everyone is very close to that courtroom right now for anything that might happen momentarily.

MATTINGLY: Yes, the expectation is momentarily, as you said. Donte, quick question. If this is declared a mistrial, what conversations happen then between prosecution and defense?

DONTE MILLS, TRIAL LAWYER: Well, it depends on what side most of the jurors were on. If they were, in fact, on the defense side, the defense attorneys have some leverage here to say, OK, listen, you almost lost this case. There's no guarantee that we won't get the same result next time. So you should offer something that our client is willing to accept where she accepts some responsibility.

Maybe there's a shorter sentence that you include in that plea deal and say, listen, don't take this risk, because as you can see, you have a chance to lose. But I also want to point out, I know the judge gave an hour in efficiency, expediency. All of that is important. But you also want to get it right.

If there's a chance to save this jury, you want to save them because of all of the work that went in. And also the other component to this is, if a retrial happens, they're going to have to pick a new jury. Almost everybody has been involved in this case and have had conversations about it or overheard people talking about it.

So getting a fresh jury, especially if you try and do it right away, that doesn't already know the facts of this case, that may not already have opinions, and then at the end of that case, we'll all have 12 people agree and not end up in the same situation, that's not an easy ask. So I think they should take, even if it takes longer than an hour, you take every avenue that you have, every possible thing that you can do to try and save this jury and get a verdict while all the work has been done. Because even if we do start over, there's no guarantee that we won't end up back into the same place.

MATTINGLY: If you have -- first off, thank you. You guys have been extraordinarily helpful with your expertise throughout the course of the hour. I know everybody will be sticking around, continuing to watch that courthouse as we await a decision on an emergency appeal to the declaration of a mistrial should happen any moment now.

If you have a question about the Lindsay Clancy murder case, email it to cnnallaccess-questions@cnn.com. CNN experts are taking on your questions and comments right now at cnnallaccess.

Thank you for joining Inside Politics. CNN News Central starts after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)