Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Mistrial Declared in Lindsay Clancy Murder Trial. Aired 11:30a- 12p ET

Aired September 04, 2026 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All rise.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Jean, that's a bit of a twist there from the defense attorney. They're going to take a break. He's got to appeal now, and he has an hour to do so based on this single juror. He wants to basically file a complaint. Tell us more about this and what's happening.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This is an absolute twist because the judge had said, I am going to order a mistrial. It has come to this point. And we were just waiting for the jury to enter the courtroom and the defense ready with his argument. The defense saying that he is going to take this to the highest court in Massachusetts. That is the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for an emergency stay, and he wants to appeal any mistrial in this case because of the travesty, was the word he used, the travesty of this situation.

So, he would go back to his original argument that the jury foreperson sent the note that the juror would recognize doubt but would not apply the law. That would be his argument there. The conclusion, I have no idea because the court issues their decisions on questions of law.

And so, the judge is allowing him to have one hour this morning. So, the jury is going to have to stay in that deliberation room and just hold one hour to see if the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts will issue a stay or a stop. And everything is on hold. That means a mistrial would not be declared over the weekend, potentially an emergency. One judge would determine the issue here. And if that judge would rule in the defense favor Tuesday, the day after the holiday, the jury would have to come back to the courthouse.

BROWN: This is highly unusual. I've covered a lot of trials in my career. You have, too. What is the likelihood that the defense attorney will be successful in this?

CASAREZ: You know, many times they do allow for the stay so they can just parse it out and see what is really here. But I think that Judge Sullivan has gone to lengths to preserve the record because judges know there can be appeals. So, they want to do everything according to the law. And the reality is the jury said they were deadlocked. He gave them a soft and informal charge of telling them to go back to deliberate. They came back again with a second note saying they could not reach a unanimous decision. He then read specifically the instruction in Massachusetts, which is the Tuey-Rodriguez charge. He gave that to them, sent them back to deliberate. And then they get a note from the foreperson saying, ah, one juror, one juror recognizes doubt but won't apply it to the law. What is the truth of that? The judge would not inquire of that juror. He did not want to pierce the sanctity of their deliberations. And now, the final note with a clear and a heavy heart. We say we cannot become unanimous. So, that will be before the Supreme Judicial Court right there, that record.

And to overrule a judge would be significant because it has to be a very clear and egregious error on the part of this court. CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson joins us now. What do you make of all this, Joey?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. So, it's not unexpected, Pamela. This is obviously a case of, I mean, much magnitude, right? You have -- understand that whenever you're in a courtroom, you have two different competing narratives, both of which are very compelling. All right. So, let's start there. And when you look at a jury trying to dig in, let's remind everybody that this jury was at it for a period of about five weeks. Let's continue to remind people that there are about 85 witnesses. In addition to that, there were facts underpinning both narratives. What were they?

Number one, if you're the prosecutors, she sent her husband out on an errand for food and medicine so that she can do what she intended to do, which is to kill those children. If you're in the defense's camp, what they argued, I think with great effect, obviously, is that there was some mental acuity here, that she did not appreciate the rightfulness or wrongfulness of her actions. A loving mother doesn't just do that. And they focus, the defense did, on the lack of treatment she received and, quite frankly, the incompetent treatment she received and the applying of medication.

Why do I say that in the context of what's happening here? I say that because the jury had to really decipher these narratives and make a determination as to which one was more compelling. And they had to do that, Pamela, under the specter of reasonable doubt. Now, reasonable doubt is not a mathematical certainty. It is whether you have a firm conviction. Obviously, the jury had trouble in that regard.

[11:35:00]

And the other reason I mentioned all of this is because they've been fighting over this now on their seventh day. You have a system of 12 jurors in our system of justice. The 12 jurors have to be unanimous. That is all have to agree. Could you imagine having 12 jurors agree on anything or 12 people agree on anything much less two narratives? Which both are very compelling that told by the prosecution that told by the defense.

To the court issue now. What's happening is, is that the judge is about to declare a mistrial? What does that mean? It means that a jury cannot render an appropriate decision as to what happened They can't -- when I say appropriate, meaning unanimous, right? Whether the jury cannot get on the same page as to whether it is guilty or not guilty. The judge has tried to tell the jury to do that. How is the judge tried? You just heard Jean Casarez speak to the issue of a Tuey- Rodriguez charge. What is that? That's when you tell the jury, ladies and gentlemen, we respect your service There's no other jury that could come and sit in this case that would be quite different than you. They're all going to have disagreements.

In the event that you have a firmly held conviction stick to it, but if you think you can reasonably alter your position based upon the facts and circumstances, then do that. The judge gave them that instruction. It doesn't mean you have to alter your position, that means, you know, look, deliberate in good faith. And if you could change it, do it, if you can't change it, do not do it. And the law allows for you to have a lone juror. That's our system of justice. One juror can hold everybody up.

So, now we're at the point where the judge is about to declare the mistrial, meaning this trial is over. Jury cannot render an appropriate verdict. We're done. And before doing that the defense attorney says, well, wait one second, Judge, I want you to pull the jury as to whether they have made a determination as to any other charge besides first-degree murder now.

What am I speaking about? I'll be very clear. In the event, for example, the jury there are some things called lesser included. So, I want to get to legalese, but it's very important to note. The jury may have made a decision, for example, right, some jurors may have said that this is intentional murder. On the intentional murder charge and other jurors one may have said it's not or vice versa.

In any event, there are things called lesser included offenses. That's what they're arguing about. Maybe it's not first-degree murder, maybe it's second-degree murder, because first-degree murder requires you showing it was extreme cruel -- right, the cruelty attached to it, maybe the jury didn't decide that. Don't know what they decided. That would be second-degree murder. Maybe the jurors decided manslaughter, that it was reckless. All the defense attorney is saying that he wants to know if there were any determinations made as to these other charges.

Why is that important? Because if a jury says that, yes, we considered manslaughter, and we determined that it wasn't reckless, we would have voted not guilty, you can't try her again on that. Yes, we consider the fact that it could have been second-degree murder because it was intentional, but it didn't involve cruelty, you can't try her again on that.

Why is that a big defense win? Because if the defense can make the jury polled saying, we found not guilty on manslaughter, we found not guilty on second-degree murder, the prosecution cannot, cannot, cannot under the double jeopardy provisions try that again. And that's important because if the if the prosecutor in its discretion decides to retry this case those two things have been determined and they would have to try this on the first-degree murder statute only.

And so, what this defense attorney is doing is he wants an emergency stay to determine whether the judge, in his discretion, got it wrong and whether he's entitled to have the jury poll to make an assessment as to whether they've reached the conclusion on these other charges. And if they've done that then it's over as to those charges if the prosecution decides to try it again. And that's essentially what he's given an hour to do. We'll see whether or not the defense attorney is able to get a court to agree with that assessment and have the jury poll to see if they rendered a conclusion as to these other charges or whether or not the defense attorney is not successful at that.

But it's a big moment because it goes to what discretion if any the prosecutors will have when they try this case again with respect to what charges they're going to bring forward and what another jury, if they try it again, could decide legally if this is brought before them.

BROWN: Yes. There's a big if, if they'll try it again because they could decide not to, they could decide to reach a plea deal for a lesser charge. There's several different scenarios. But in addition to the double jeopardy aspect, I mean, you heard Reddington say, I believe this is a situation where there is a clear and present danger that this individual, for some reason, we don't know, but it's taking a position that's intractable regardless of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So, he said I want to take an opportunity to appeal to a single justice. What did you make of that?

JACKSON: I mean, look, the bottom line is that this is defense attorneys essentially doing his job. If we back up a little bit, this defense attorney initially wanted to have the single juror who was holding up the mix to be removed from the jury. That was the first fight that was had today.

[11:40:00]

Does this single juror need to be removed and are they otherwise not applying the law? The judge in response to that essentially was saying that, you know, it's not up to me.

Understand this, Pamela, as you very well know, and let's talk about it from a viewer's perspective. Everyone has a different role in that courtroom. The prosecutor's role is to say, you're guilty, Ms. Clancy, and here's why. You engage in intentional murder with regard to your three children. The defense's role is to say, hey, wait, not so fast. As a result of what she did, she clearly could not appreciate her actions. This is not murder. This is not guilty by reason of insanity due to that lack of appreciation.

What's the other party's role? That's the jury. The jury is to determine the facts. It's not up to the judge to determine the facts, the prosecution to determine it, the defense. The jury's sole province is to determine what the facts are and what they suggest in terms of murder or the lack thereof. Finally, the judge simply instructs as to the law. That's the judge's job.

If you picture this, Pamela, we have, for example, sporting events, right, this is not a sporting event, I'm not suggesting it is, I'm using an example. In a sporting event you have a referee that blows the whistle and cries foul when something happens, in any sport. Their job is not to play, to dribble a basketball, to hit a baseball, their job is to call balls and strikes. That's the job of a judge.

And when the defense attorney was trying to remove this specific juror, the judge says, I don't have a basis to do that. There's no indication that this juror was not deliberating in good faith. There's no indication that this judge was -- excuse me, juror was engaged in misconduct. There's no indication of anything other than this juror having an alternate view from the other jurors. And that is perfectly acceptable in our particular system of justice. So, what the defense attorney is doing is laying the foundation in the event your client is convicted for an appeal.

In the event your client is convicted and the judge made a misstep, now you have an appealable issue to argue to a higher court as to why there was an error that would entitle your client to an actual redo. Now, we don't know again, right, and we could speculate about things, but we just don't know specifically what the jurors are -- you know, where they met out, guilty, not guilty, et cetera, but the defense attorney simply laying a foundation for an appeal and doing all he can to protect his client in the event this case is tried again.

BROWN: Yes. And all we can glean, Alan Tuerkheimer, jury consultant, an attorney, is that there have been letters sent to the judge from the foreperson saying that there was this lone juror who had expressed doubt and they believe the jury, the 11 others believed that he, according to Reddington, was not following the law.

You have to wonder what is happening inside that room right now, Alan, if we still have you, because the jury sent that letter the foreperson saying look it's with a heavy heart. We can't reach a consensus and then now they're having to wait an hour to find out if this will be -- this appeal will be granted, this emergency stay? You just have to wonder what's happening inside that room right now.

ALAN TURKHEIMER, JURY CONSULTANT ATTORNEY: Right. I think heavy heart is putting it kindly. This jury has been through the ringer. Juror fatigue probably set in a couple days ago. And they got to the point where after 36, 37 hours of deliberating one juror is holding out and that causes frustration. And there's nothing that we know about this juror that suggests that he said something like, I'm not going to follow the law or I believe that there's reasonable doubt, but still I'm not going to let her get away with this. She killed her kids. We just don't know that, and that's what the law and how the system is set up. You have 12 jurors.

Look, it's hard to get 12 jurors -- it's hard to be unanimous with anything and jurors do it all the time but if you think about it in polling when you have a divided country, 70 -- if 75 percent of people believe something and 25 don't, that's a lot, that's significant. That's nine out of 12 jurors. So, the fact that 11 of 12 jurors agreed, that's also an accomplishment, but the system is set up where you have to be unanimous. This happens all the time. There's a holdout, and this holdout was empowered to stick to his guns and not alter his views, and that's just where we are.

And I think the jury is ready to go. It's a long weekend coming up. They've tried. They've done their best. They keep getting sent back. I just think at some point, which is now, that they're done with this and it's time to move on. And Reddington's doing all he can is an ardent defender of Lindsay Clancy.

BROWN: Yes. Everyone has a job. But just think about the emotional toll because we can't forget at the center of this are three children who were killed. The defense doesn't deny that they had argued though that Lindsay Clancy did it because she was in postpartum psychosis. And now, we're in this limbo stage, Jean Casarez, where you had the judge basically say, you know, under the statute I feel like I have no other choice than to declare a mistrial.

[11:45:00]

Then this twist of the defense asking for an appeal. So, bottom line, is this a mistrial or not? Do we have to wait this hour to find out whether it's an official mistrial? What's going on? Help us understand this.

CASAREZ: Yes. There is no mistrial at this point.

BROWN: OK.

CASAREZ: It's the judge's intent to declare a mistrial. And then the defense stepped in very quickly saying, I'm going to the highest judicial court in Massachusetts to ask for a stay to stop you in your actions, judge, from declaring a mistrial to see if this deliberation can go forward. And so, we're waiting that hour right now.

But, Pam, you bring up something that is, is forgotten in this case. The reason this prosecution was brought is because three innocent, beautiful children were killed in a horrific way. Horrific. I mean, Pam, during the testimony, when the medical examiner talked about the exercise ban that had to be four pounds of strength around little Cora's neck, and it had to be held there for upwards of a minute to make sure that the deed was done. And Cora was five years old.

And what we heard through testimony was she loved bows. She was a girly girl. Her enthusiasm for her dolls and for her life was just beautiful. And you saw that in the pictures. Then you had Dawson, who was three years old. Dawson loved fire trucks and trucks in general. And that's what he wanted to do, was to play with his trucks. And then you had Callan, eight months old, and just almost a year.

It's interesting because there is a priest, has been in that courtroom for quite a while, Father Bob. And we had heard during the trial, the defense stood up and said, Father Bob comes and he visits Lindsay during the court day sometimes. But what he also said, the defense attorney in court, that he had baptized Callan. So, Father Bob, in that courtroom, baptized the youngest child, Callan.

BROWN: It's just beyond heartbreaking. We're looking at pictures right now of these beautiful children, and it just makes you want to cry when you describe the evidence that was presented in the courtroom with those exercise bands. I'm sorry. It's just awful. This trial has evoked a lot of emotion. CASAREZ: It is. And you know, Pam, it is, on first-degree murder, one of the theories is extreme atrocity and cruelty. And the reason prosecutors brought that charge is because of the cruelty of the way the three young children, who were placed face down on the floor in the basement, of how they were killed. That's why that charge was brought.

And the prosecution, the Commonwealth, is representing those victims, those lives that they believed should have justice. No matter what side you're on, three children were gone, and the prosecution felt they had a responsibility here to bring this case before their community for those children.

BROWN: And, Jean, you know, talk to us a little bit about the youngest, this sweet little baby boy, eight months old, and why that's relevant, why this happened, that he was eight months old, so she was eight months into her postpartum period, and how that factored into the argument that she was experiencing postpartum psychosis.

CASAREZ: Yes, that is correct. And that has been the defense from the beginning, that it was -- there was a misdiagnosis, that that postpartum period extended longer than most, but that it was there. And the bipolar II became a psychosis, and on that day of January 24th of 2023, there was a voice, as part of the psychosis, commanding her that this is the moment, this is the moment when you have to kill your children.

That was brought out, that that voice did not say how to commit the killings of your children, not where to commit the killings, what instrument, what murder weapon to use to kill your children. And so, that's where the prosecution comes in and says, there were very demonstrative actions here. Dawson was taken down into the basement first. And she was a loving mother. Both sides said she was such a loving mother. But she had written that Dawson was a handful, and Dawson wouldn't obey her many times. And Dawson was the first one. And then you had the other two.

[11:50:00]

You know, one thing, Pamela, that's important, the prosecution theory here through their experts was not that she killed them out of hatred or anger or meanness. One of the experts called it as that she loved her children so much and that she had made the decision she was going to commit suicide in her right mind. That is, she wanted to take her life, she was going to take her life. And she didn't want to leave her children without a mother. And so, the theory is that she killed her children so they would be with her still, even in death.

BROWN: So, help us better understand, Jean, why the defense would be fighting so hard right now against a mistrial.

CASAREZ: Because if the one lone juror would side with the 11, which appears to be an acquittal, a not guilty, based on lack of criminal responsibility or mental insanity at that moment, at that time when she killed her children, then that's not guilty. And yes, what would happen in that situation is that the judge would order her to be evaluated at the mental hospital, where she is right now, and then the prosecution, in six months, could ask her to be committed to the mental hospital.

However, if it is believed that she does not have a mental disease or defect anymore and that she's not a danger to the community after a triple homicide, she can be released. She could be a free woman. That's not beyond the realm of reality right there. And that is one reason. And of course, the defense believes that there was psychosis, that absolutely, that that is reasonable doubt right there, that they should acquit her of this.

But the prosecution, of course, looked at all of the deliberate actions that were done on that day, down to the point of, in the midst of everything, returning a phone call to her husband and telling him, yes, generic Pedia-Lax is just fine to get for Cora.

BROWN: You know, Jean, I, you know, got a little emotional there, but I did add three kids close to that age. And, you know, I think this is -- just struck such a nerve for so many people worldwide, frankly. And it's brought up so many important and passionate conversations. And you've seen it actually outside that courthouse, too, because it's been shining a spotlight whether or not you agree or disagree with the prosecution. That aside, it's brought a spotlight on to postpartum mental health in a way that we haven't seen previously.

CASAREZ: Absolutely. It is now part of the national spotlight, and I think that it goes far beyond this trial because there is a question whether she was still in the postpartum time period or had that postpartum morphed into just actual mental disease or defect. And I think that's a bigger issue right there. But beside the trial and the evidence, it is now part of the conversation.

And most providers believe that postpartum does not last that long. The World Health Organization, we heard this in the trial, is part of the evidence, and other independent organizations believe that postpartum can last longer. But the medical providers, what they were required to follow was that the postpartum period had actually ended for the defendant.

BROWN: I want to bring in Joey Jackson as the time ticks for that hour for the appeal. You know, I just wonder how unusual it would be when you have the judge in this case declaring his intent for a mistrial and then allowing for this hour appeal. How unusual would it be for this one justice to come back and actually grant the emergency stay once the judge had already indicated that?

JACKSON: Yes, Pamela, I think it's highly unusual. But then, again, this trial has been highly unusual. And this trial really has been a battle between two sides, each of which is persuasive. I believe the defense thinks that that one holdout is for guilty, and the other ones want to say not guilty by reason of insanity.

But understand that when the judge says mistrial, this is -- it's done, it's over. This jury is now disbanded, and the prosecution then decides on a few things. Number one, do we try this again, and if so, when? Number two, do we cut a plea deal in the event the defense would be inclined to enter into some kind of plea that would make sense? Or number three, the prosecution could decide that we just dismiss this case.

[11:55:00]

And that's going to be based upon a number of things in the event that the mistrial is ultimately declared an hour from now, right? What's the strength of our case? What was the jury breakdown? Was it indeed 11 not guilty versus one guilty? Can we do this again? Does it really satisfy the public interest in terms of whether or not the prosecutor should invest the resources in moving forward? So, there's a lot to consider.

But I think the overall issue, the judge clearly has a discretion to declare a mistrial. I don't think that's the issue. This jury has been at it for a long time. They apparently have been making good faith efforts, Pamela, to reach a unanimous consensus, which is hard. I think the core issue of the defense is to have the jury say, hey, look, maybe we were a mistrial on the first-degree murder count because we had this disconnect.

But maybe the jury has reached a unanimous decision as to the lesser included offenses as to whether this was manslaughter, right, by some provocation or disturbance of mind or what have you. Maybe it was second-degree murder. They didn't find atrocity. Now, you know, who knows? But there could very well be a not guilty as to those two things and a guilty as to the first.

And one important nuance, there's a difference between saying, hey, jurors, would you have found guilty if it were manslaughter? Would you have found guilty if it were second-degree murder? Right. What were you thinking? What was the breakdown? That's different from asking the jury whether or not they consider that. And if they consider that, have they said not guilty or guilty? That's the issue.

And I think that's what the defense attorney wants to appeal. Last point, Pamela. Because if it is appealed and the judges say, hey, stay this mistrial, yes, we want the jury pulled on those questions. If the jury said not guilty manslaughter, not guilty second-degree murder, again, what happens is the prosecution cannot, cannot try those again because of double jeopardy. You cannot be tried for the same offense twice. And the jury would have rendered a conclusion as to those charges. The jury did not render a conclusion or has not rendered a conclusion as to first degree murder premeditation with atrocity and cruelty.

BROWN: Jean, I want to just give final thoughts to you as we wrap up the show. There are so many layers to all of this. And as I said earlier, it's really gripped the world where we can all feel what we feel in this moment, right? Tell us what's happening right now, what's happening outside the courthouse, inside and just the stakes of this hour that we're in limbo and right now.

CASAREZ: The judge is giving the defense one hour to try to get an emergency stay, a stop on this trial. Trial's still in progressing, it still lives, but a stop, which would remain potentially over the weekend at least, because the defense wants this jury to continue to deliberate. Now, if he cannot get an emergency stay from the highest court in Massachusetts in one hour, we have to see if the judge follows through and does what he says he intends to do, declare a mistrial. And then it could be potentially an appellate issue that takes a length of time for the defense to go forward on.

Meanwhile, the jury, the jury is most likely sitting in a room and they're just waiting, maybe not understanding why they're waiting, but we do not know if they've been told you can continue to deliberate. We do not know at all about that, but they are still at the courthouse. And once that hour passes, I think we've got about 30 more minutes, right? We'll see if court convenes again and a decision is made.

BROWN: Yes. And in terms of Lindsay Clancy, if the mistrial does get declared officially, if the defense is not successful, is it likely she would go back to the psychiatric hospital where she's staying?

CASAREZ: Absolutely, absolutely, because that is where she is right now. Now, every jurisdiction is different, but most likely the prosecution would stand up to make sure that she stays in custody because they potentially would want to retry her. This was always a no bail situation. But even though she is in a hospital, she is still officially in custody while she is there.

BROWN: All right. Anything else as we wrap up that we should be aware of as we tick down the time to the end of the hour here, Jean?

CASAREZ: I think just stay close, stay very close, because at any moment things can change. This is a very fluid situation. One judge can stop this trial in its tracks from having the judge declare a mistrial. At that point, we see what the judge does.

On the other hand, if that stay is not gained by the defense, the judge may go forward and say you tried, I know you tried. And at that point --

[12:00:00]