September 4, 2026 • 37 mins
Hour 1 of the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show was dominated by breaking developments in the highly publicized Lindsay Clancy murder trial in Massachusetts, as the hosts analyzed reports of a pending mistrial and extraordinary courtroom drama surrounding jury deliberations. Clay and Buck focused extensively on allegations that an 11-1 jury split had emerged, with one juror reportedly refusing to join the majority in finding Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity. The hosts examined the defense team's unprecedented effort to seek intervention from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and remove the lone holdout juror, arguing that the juror was allegedly failing to apply the law as instructed. Clay and Buck discussed the legal implications of juror independence, mistrials, reasonable doubt standards, jury misconduct claims, and whether courts should ever intervene in deliberations when a single juror disagrees with the majority.
The conversation centered on dramatic courtroom exchanges between the defense attorney and trial judge, including arguments over emergency appeals, requests to delay a mistrial declaration, and disputes regarding jury instructions. Clay, drawing on his legal background, and Buck, offering a broader public perspective, questioned whether the defense was improperly attempting to overturn the jury process simply because one juror would not yield. They characterized the situation as highly unusual and debated what information from inside the jury room may have prompted the defense's claims that the holdout juror was disregarding legal standards.
The hosts also explored the broader significance of the reported jury split and what it revealed about public attitudes toward the insanity defense. They repeatedly returned to the possibility that the overwhelming majority of jurors appeared prepared to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity while one juror remained opposed. Clay and Buck discussed the pressure facing a lone holdout juror, the dangers of exposing jury deliberations to public scrutiny, and whether the disclosures themselves represented an extraordinary breakdown in the normal judicial process.
A major theme throughout Hour 1 was criticism of the prosecution’s apparent passivity during the courtroom battle. Clay suggested that prosecutors seemed reluctant to aggressively challenge the defense’s motions, potentially indicating an expectation that a conviction would be difficult to obtain in any future retrial. Both hosts debated whether Massachusetts prosecutors would realistically pursue another trial if a mistrial were declared, particularly given indications that the jury was overwhelmingly leaning toward an insanity verdict. They examined possible outcomes ranging from retrial to plea negotiations and questioned how likely it would be for a second jury to reach a dramatically different conclusion.
The program also delved into the broader cultural and political implications of the case. Clay and Buck discussed public reactions to postpartum mental health defenses, gender differences in criminal responsibility, and the debate over whether society applies different standards to men and women accused of violent crimes. The hosts argued that the case had evolved beyond a local criminal proceeding into a nationally followed legal story, comparing public fascination with the trial to other landmark criminal cases and discussing the intense emotional reactions it has generated across the country.
Later in the hour, listeners joined the discussion, including a former prosecutor who offered insight into mistrial strategy and retrials. The caller argued that mistrials are not always devastating for prosecutors because they gain valuable knowledge about the defense’s approach and can adjust tactics in a second trial. Clay and Buck evaluated that perspective while continuing to assess the likelihood of future proceedings and the challenges prosecutors would face in securing a conviction after an apparent 11-1 split.
Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8
For the latest updates from Clay & Buck, visit our website https://www.clayandbuck.com/
Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton:
X -
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome in to the Friday edition of Play and Buck.
We predicted that this would be the likely case, but
as we head into the Labor Day weekend. There is
a pending mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case, and every
network is covering right now live in the courtroom. It appears, well,
(00:26):
let me play a couple of audio clips for you,
and then we will dive into what is going on.
And frankly, I've never heard of this before. The defense
is appealing to the Massachusetts Supreme Court to argue that
a juror should be dismissed. for I'm not sure exactly
(00:47):
the grounds that they are citing, but it has to
do with his behavior as part of a jury process.
And it looks like, Buck, and again, I'm going to
play the audio, that based on the way all of
the audio you are hearing is being reflected, that 11 jurors,
have essentially agreed that Lindsay Clancy is not guilty by
(01:11):
reason of insanity. That is, she killed all three of
her kids, and she's not responsible for that because she
was temporarily insane. Her hormones made her do it, basically.
And right now, it appears there is one lone juror
who is refusing to sign on with that. And for
(01:32):
the past couple of days, people have just been... attacking him,
I would imagine, in the jury room. And the pressure
has been ratcheted up outside. I've never really seen anything
like this. And maybe there's some trial attorneys out there
listening to us right now that have had an experience
similar to this. I've never really heard of anything like this, Buck.
(01:54):
I've never really seen anything like this. And again, this
is just analyzing the legal situation, not getting into opinions
surrounding it.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
So again, this is great because you've got Clay, who's
actually a lawyer, and me, who's a, I would like
to think, well-informed civilian, but not.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Actually a JD.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
And so I'll come at this from the perspective of
just pure common sense. Clay has the procedural, legal procedural expertise.
So this is where I'd say, I know, and this
comes from, I'll be honest, watching Law & Order episodes,
that you can have a For example, a judge can
(02:34):
set aside a jury verdict, which is shocking when people
find this out. But a judge is extremely rare. But
a judge can just say, no, I'm actually and there
has to be some greater reasoning or rationale beyond that.
But that is a real thing that can happen that
very few people know about. There's also clay like the
writ of mandamus.
Speaker 4 (02:54):
Right.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Where you're basically going to another court saying immediately, I
need you to weigh in on this.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
This is critical.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
I need the appeals court to come down and say
what's going on here is is outrageous and needs to
be stopped. And then you have and again, that's just
a civilian point of view of these things. I'm sure
there's greater explanation and understanding of it out there. But
in this case, Clay. You would just say to yourself,
(03:20):
hold on a second, the defense wants another judge to
remove a juror. What is the point of the jury
if the defense can just say, I don't like this
guy who is not giving me the verdict that I want?
Speaker 3 (03:37):
You know what I'm saying?
Speaker 2 (03:39):
On what basis? They're saying refuses to listen to the law.
That is an entirely subjective judgment that they are making
based upon outcome, not upon reasoning or rationale. The judge
here says, um has has had to deal with the
defense attorney and this came out yesterday so we kind
(04:00):
of knew what was going on the defense attorney said
11 jurors have made a decision and one juror will
not apply reasonable doubt no that's not actually what's happening
here that juror is allowed to have his own and
we know it's a him because the defense counsel also
kind of outed him but we also knew that in
the His application of the reasonable doubt standard is different
(04:23):
than the other jurors, and he's not budging on that
because too much is at stake. But you see what
I mean about this being– it's just an end run
if this were to be granted, but I don't think
it will. Sullivan has treated this as a disagreement inside deliberation.
It's not juror misconduct. The defense is calling for this
(04:43):
as though it's juror misconduct, like a juror got a
note from somebody outside or the juror took money or
did something that's illicit as part of the process. The
notion that you would remove somebody based on an emergency
appeal is outrageous.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
The fact that defense even tried this is kind of crazy, honestly.
So I've got so many thoughts on this. Let's play
the cuts so you can get a sense for why
we believe what is going on is going on. And again,
you have to use the context clues that we have,
which are the open mic moments in the courtroom. Let's
(05:20):
start with this because I think there's probably some people
out there who are not that familiar with the absolute latest.
Here is yesterday. I believe this is Lindsey Clancy's attorney.
Kevin Reddington saying there's one juror who refuses to listen
to the law. This is cut for.
Speaker 5 (05:39):
There's one juror who refuses to listen to the law
that you've given him or her on reasonable doubt. And
I suggest respectfully that the soft instruction that you gave
them saying at the sidebar, can you listen to the
law as I instruct you, does not work. focus on
the issue and if we come back here in a
(06:00):
half an hour with a mistrial because of a because
of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of
this court it's a shame it's a real.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
Shame okay so he's telling you a lot there when
he's saying if we come back with a mistrial because
of one juror he's letting everyone know basically 11 people
have agreed and for the defense attorney to be making
this argument The only reason he would be making this
argument is if he's trying to get the unanimous 12
(06:30):
not guilty. Now, the judge fired back at that. This
is him today, a little bit earlier in the courtroom,
cut three.
Speaker 5 (06:41):
Clearly, I would ask that you not just give them,
as I described it yesterday, a soft inquiry. Listen to
my instructions. I would ask that you specifically direct their
attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and re-instruct them
on that forcefully.
Speaker 4 (06:59):
I think I did that yesterday, didn't I? Yes.
Speaker 5 (07:02):
You did it yesterday. You did it soft. You didn't
do it forcefully. What do you want me to do?
Speaker 3 (07:08):
Get a brass band?
Speaker 4 (07:09):
I read the instruction as written by the SJC.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
The fact that I perhaps.
Speaker 4 (07:15):
Didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that.
I'm not an actor.
Speaker 3 (07:20):
I've just given the instructions.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Okay, Buck, a couple more here. Defense is acting in
histrionics here. This is absurd.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
But I have to say, the prosecutors not fighting back
against this in an aggressive way lets you know that
basically they feel like they've lost the case.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
Now, a couple more things. This just happened.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
The defense, as the judge is declaring a mistrial, says, hey,
give us an hour.
Speaker 3 (07:48):
We're in the middle of that hour.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
I don't know when the hour officially runs out We'll
explain exactly what's going on there, too. But this was
just the explosives in the courtroom. The explosive arguments cut
one over the defendant's objection.
Speaker 4 (08:04):
I'm going to declare a mistrial at this point.
Speaker 5 (08:06):
But that's all for his time to file a single
justice appeal for this travesty. That's what I'm asking for.
Speaker 4 (08:12):
So you're asking for emergency stay at this point?
Speaker 5 (08:14):
Yes. And the jurors don't have to come back tomorrow.
They can be told that. 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.
Speaker 4 (08:28):
If you want to go up and petition to the
SGC for a stay, I'll give you an hour before
we bring the jury back down. I think you could,
it's just a request for the stay of the declaration
of the mistrial. So I'll hold off for an hour
and then we'll come back in in regards to that.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Clay, this defense is abusing process here. This is nonsense.
He doesn't like the outcome he's getting. So he's acting
like there's some malfeasance that a court what court is
talking about the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
That's the SJC.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
What court is going to say, yeah, we're not even
really on this case. We're going to look at it
and just decide to overrule the verdict.
Speaker 5 (09:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
Let me play cut to this is his argument, because
whether you like it or not, this is what the
defense is saying. If you're saying what in the world's
going on here, they are saying basically that this juror
should be dismissed.
Speaker 3 (09:25):
Cut to clearly judge.
Speaker 5 (09:27):
We have a person who under their oath stood in
front of you yesterday when you did the individual idea.
And according to this information under oath, look you in
the eye and lied. That juror told you that he
would be able to apply the law to the facts
(09:49):
as you asked him. And based on this note from
this juror, it clearly and unequivocally indicates that they are
basically 11 to 1. 1. And this person will not
apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not
guilty verdict.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
OK, so this first of all, to me, Buck. I
got so many thoughts on this, but this part, I think,
is the most.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
Intriguing here.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Knowing exactly how the jurors are voting and to have
a note where, again, he says he so we know
it's one of the three men on this court on
this jury is refusing to find not guilty and to
be trying to get him dismissed. So that the other
11 jurors all in agreement can say not guilty. It
(10:44):
sounds like he's basing this on reports that are coming
from inside of the jury deliberation room where basically other
jurors are telling on this guy and saying he's not
behaving appropriately as a juror and therefore he could and
should be dismissed because the rest of us have a
(11:06):
unanimous verdict.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
Well, I think it's just pure inference, Clay, because if
he's getting information from the jury deliberations, that's going to
be a mistrial alone right there.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
I don't think it's inference. I think he's basic.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
I mean, he said there they have sidebar conversations. So
the juror note must say. I mean, he's basically let
it all be known now. What I'm surprised by is
that they've let the full deliberations of the jury now
go out into the public, and there is one guy
who is refusing.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
Just to be clear.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
And now it's all public. But his reason, Clay, it
has to be inference as to why the guy is refusing.
We know it's 11-1. But the other jurors, their opinion
of his application of the law would be absolutely irrelevant.
They have no standing to say, we think this juror...
The whole point of the jury is that everybody gets
to decide based on the evidence for themselves. This whole
(11:58):
thing is trying to basically muscle through the jury process
to stack it so that they get the... By the way,
she doesn't walk. What they want is a not guilty
by reason of insanity, and she goes to the insane asylum.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
That's what.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
That's what would happen if this guy folded. She goes
to the nuthouse. She doesn't get found guilty of murder. Clearly,
this guy, Clay, thinks because she did. Obviously, she killed
her three kids. He won't be a part of this.
And he is standing against this. All this stuff that
the defense attorney is saying, but he's not applying the law,
that's just the defense attorney's analysis.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
I think he knows that that's what the jurors are
telling them. But that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because
that juror is allowed to think whatever he wants about
the law.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
I think the argument is that, I'm guessing, again, we
usually don't get this degree of specificity from inside of
a jury, which is a sign that this thing is
totally off the rails. And now the judge, even as
outing Sorry, the defense attorney is saying he. Yesterday he
tried to say he or she. Today he is saying he.
(13:01):
So we know it's one of the three men based
on the way that he is talking here. My presumption
is that what is occurring is the judge is giving
them a charge and saying this is what you are
called to do. And my bet is that this guy
is saying in the jury room, I'm not applying reasonable doubt.
I'm not applying any of these standards, my bet. is
(13:23):
he's saying she's a mom and she killed her three
kids and we know it happened and I don't need
to know anything else. And so they are saying that
he is refusing to take the instructions from the judge
and apply them to the facts of the law. This
is my surmiso based on all this evidence and that
therefore he is violating his oath as a juror. and
(13:48):
should be removed from the case, which sometimes does happen. Now,
I think this is outrageous that we have ended up
in this situation, and certainly if I were on this jury,
I give credit to this guy because it's hard. It
might have been 11-1 for six days, Buck. Imagine what
it's like to be in that jury room. All he
has to do is say yes and he can leave,
(14:09):
and this guy is refusing to relent to the other jurors,
and now they're telling on him. and saying he's not
actually applying the law as he's required to do so, judge.
And as a result, the defense is saying he should
be off the case.
Speaker 6 (14:24):
Right.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
But my fundamental point here stands, which is that a
person on the jury is allowed to interpret the law
as he or she sees fit. The rest of the
jury saying this guy doesn't understand the law because they're
not getting their way cannot be.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
Otherwise, you'd never have a mistrial. You'd just be like,
boot the guy out who doesn't agree.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Imagine that he said, hey, I don't think a black
person could be guilty of murder and therefore I will
not find a black person guilty of murder.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
That would be juror misconduct.
Speaker 4 (14:57):
Right.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
The jury, in theory, would be removed even though his
position is one that is valid inside of the like
you have an obligation as a juror to apply the
law in some way.
Speaker 4 (15:11):
Right.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
You can't just say I won't convict somebody.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
But this is clearly a very contentious area of the
application of law in this case. So you're coming up
with no. If this guy is completely insane and says
something crazy, then he should be removed. We're talking about
something that 50% of the country disagrees with the other 50%
on right now.
Speaker 3 (15:29):
Potentially.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
I'm just saying this is unprecedented to have the actual
votes of the jurors out there. I agree with the
guy who is saying not guilty. He may just be
not very articulate in the way he's saying it. If
he's saying I refuse to apply the law as part
of the way that he is voting, then he is
(15:51):
potentially opening himself up to a mess.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
There's, I mean, I don't think anybody in the jury
room is so stupid as to be like, I'm not
a plug.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
Why hold out? If you're going to say that, do
you know what I'm saying? You wouldn't, there's no, that's crazy.
I get it.
Speaker 1 (16:04):
Um, but I'm trying to explain what I think is
going on here because the judge decided to not have
the mistress posted by eight minutes.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
It's extremely unusual to your point. They, the only thing
can be these notes. The notes can be basically whatever
they want. It goes to the judge first, then to
the defense. Clay, Clay, It is extremely unusual, according to
all the research that we can do on the fly
here for a jury to single out another juror and
basically say this person's a moron. I've never I've never
(16:33):
heard of it before, which is why I'm saying like
this whole scenario is just absolutely bonkers.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
That alone could be grounds for some kind of a mistrial.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
We went so long. We've got to go to break.
We'll have a short segment here. We're fired up. 800-282-2882.
Eight minutes away in theory from the judge coming back
and updating us on this. laugh learn and hang with
the guys clay and buck preset on the iheart app
hey welcome back in uh we got fired up we're
(17:03):
continuing to be fired up i want to tell you
if you're fired up about the return of college football
hard rock bet i love these guys you can get
hooked up i stayed up late last night buck has
no idea this game was going on congratulations colorado beat
georgia tech That was one I did not see coming.
I have got a pick for you. Florida State's going
(17:24):
to beat SMU outright, but you get them as a
three-point underdog. If you bet $ 5, you get $ 100 in
bonus bets. If you go to hardrock.bet.com, that is hardrock.bet.com.
No matter if you've played before or not, $ 5 bet,
you get $ 100 bonus. bonus bets in your account you
(17:46):
can play in arizona colorado florida illinois indiana michigan new
jersey ohio virginia and my home state of tennessee hard
rock dot bet slash play we'll.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Take your calls guys so light up those lines attorneys
go to the front of the line on this one
if you've had courtroom experience want to hear from you
but everybody weigh in on those lines look picture this
you're at work your phone buzzes it's your teenager's number
and it's your kid's voice panic saying he's been in
an accident needs money wired right now you'd move heaven
and earth for that wouldn't you That's what a scammer
is counting on. Here's the play. Criminals buy your info
(18:17):
from data brokers online. Then they grab your kid's voice
off a video, clone it with AI, and make that call.
You can't stop them from cloning your kid's voice, but
you can make sure they never get your phone number
in the first place. And this is done with Incogni's help.
Incogni is an online service that removes your name from
hundreds of databases and people search sites. Incogni does that
by contacting each of them on your behalf, forcing them
(18:38):
to delete your personal info. Then Incogni works to keep
it gone. Kali and I are both using Incogni to
remove our info from as many of these data broker
sites as possible. Go to incogni.com slash buck. That's I-N-C-O-G-N-I
incogni.com slash buck at 60% off their regular prices. Incogni.com
slash buck. Use buck as your promo code for 60% off.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Welcome back in. We were talking off the air. I
think this is important to point out too. Where the
heck is the prosecution? The defense is dominating the Every
one of these motions creating huge storylines, letting it be
known how the jurors are voting, everything associated with it.
To me, this is a sign that the prosecution actually
(19:23):
is OK with her being found not guilty because they
don't want to have to retry this case. And if
she's found not guilty once and for all, this is decided.
If it's a mistrial, then the pressure goes to the
state of Massachusetts to potentially retry her. But if you've
already lost basically 11 to 1 in the first trial,
(19:46):
what are the odds that you're going to get a
12-0 the other way? direction in the second trial? I
think that's tough.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
I also just think we need to keep. Letting everyone know,
first of all, I think it's no surprise to you.
If I were on that jury or Clay was on
that jury, it would be guilty of first degree murder. OK,
I mean, meaning our votes. So that's just so everyone
just to get on the record. But I also think
we need to point out it's not not guilty, period.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
She walks.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
It's not guilty by reason of criminal insanity. And therefore
she is guilty. put into a mental facility. She doesn't
just walk out of there like nothing happened. Now, I
don't think that's the proper outcome. I think that's outrageous.
But not guilty to a lot of people, Clay, sounds like, oh,
you know, she walks, right?
Speaker 3 (20:27):
She doesn't walk.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
It's not guilty by reason of criminal insanity, which under
Massachusetts law means she is involuntarily committed to a criminal
psychiatric facility.
Speaker 3 (20:35):
Unless I'm missing something. Yeah, that's right. But she could
be out in as few as 40 days.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
This is very much like Primal Fear, the movie with
Richard Gere and Ed Norton, where he basically works in
insanity defense. I'm going to spoiler alert, works in insanity
defense into an extremely brutal murder trial. Uh, and, and
at the end it's like he was actually just playing
a game and they realized, Oh, this guy could be
(21:02):
out in 90 days.
Speaker 4 (21:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
And that's the whole thing.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
Again, that is if she has found, um, mentally capable,
she would be out of the insane asylum and a
hundred percent free in as little as 40 days. Now
it's possible that the state of Massachusetts is going to
keep her there longer. Um, But all of this is
(21:27):
chaos and we are following it in real time. And
not surprisingly, a lot of you have questions. And to
be fair, I've never seen anything like this. I don't
imagine most attorneys out there, even ones who have been
doing trial work in a criminal capacity for a long time.
have been either. And sorry, I'm watching right now in
(21:48):
real time trying to assess. They keep running the same footage.
Is it live, live inside of the courtroom or not?
I think we're not live with the judge right now,
but guys, if you in our New York City studio
can also help me with this so that do we have,
I believe we do, the capacity to take this live
(22:10):
if they are going back to the judge live with
any of this officially inside of the courtroom, we will
be able to go to you.
Speaker 3 (22:19):
A bunch of calls. Michelle in Tennessee, fire away.
Speaker 6 (22:25):
They've got it wrong. I think the loan dissent is
a not guilty and the reasonable doubt inference is being
scrutinized because you don't have to find somebody guilty immediately.
It doesn't have to be absolute guilt. It can be
a reasonable guilt. And I think that that's what's going
(22:45):
on here is that 11 people see that she is
definitely guilty. And the one holdout is like, well, you've
not proven it to be absolute.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
That doesn't make any sense, Michelle. I appreciate the argument.
It doesn't make any sense. Let me explain why her juror,
her defense is making this motion to get this juror
kicked off the jury. If the defense were trying to
kick off the one person who was on the side
of the defense, that would mean that the client was
(23:15):
going to be convicted. Her attorney should then be immediately
disbarred because he's too dumb to be able to represent
a client. I appreciate the call. This is not that. Now,
if you want to argue, and I do think this again,
I'm surprised more people aren't asking this. The prosecution just
kind of meekly sitting in their chairs and letting the
(23:38):
defense say, I'm appealing this to the Supreme Court and
not standing up and saying, this is outrageous, Judge. What
in the world are you attempting to do here? This
is unprecedented. To me, it suggests that they just want
this case done and they don't want to try to
convict her again. Because if you had a mistrial, basically,
(23:59):
it's like this thing never happened and you just go
for round two. They spent a month making the best
case they could, and they lost, at best, 11 to 1.
How much better could the prosecution do? I think they're
probably sitting around thinking about this themselves. To get a 12-0,
(24:20):
this jury has to be a wildly outrageous, outlandish representation
of the jury pool, and they would go get a
different result with another 12. That doesn't seem likely to me.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
I agree.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
I mean, I think what you've seen here is that
the jury pool, particularly of women in Massachusetts on this issue,
you will have at least one who would not go
in the other direction and convict. There's no chance that
you're going to find 12 people that are going to
convict on first degree murder. So the issue here is,
I mean, I think I think Lindsay Clancy is going
to a mental facility one way or another. And I think, though, that, Clay,
(24:58):
they may have to retry it. And the only other,
all the only alternative would be to let her, um,
plead to a lesser charge.
Speaker 3 (25:06):
But if you're the defense attorney, why would you take that?
Speaker 1 (25:09):
I think, you know, you don't take it because you
just basically nearly got a not guilty verdict, uh, unless
it's something really minor, like, Hey, she's probably spent time
in prison already. I would imagine if they say, Hey,
you'll do two years in prison and then you'll be
free and clear. Um, that which in some ways would
(25:30):
be maybe even worse in a sense arguably yeah you
know then the other thing is i think the state
of massachusetts i by the way your your point about
the prosecution i think is is extremely um important right
now because the defense attorney is going wild he's demanding
there's you know the the court come in from above
(25:51):
the uh the appeals court and And he's talking. He
knows that he has all the leverage right now and
that things are going in his direction. And the prosecution,
you pointed this out, you're correct, is very kind of
passive about this because I think they realize they don't
have a better shot at the next round.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
It's astonishing to me that only one person sees this
case for what it is so far on this jury.
Speaker 3 (26:14):
And then beyond that, Clay.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
I think it's just a really embarrassing to anyone who
actually understands.
Speaker 3 (26:21):
Well, I would just say reality, not even the law.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
If the state of Massachusetts brings this case again, only
to send her to a psychiatric facility, not guilty by
reason of insanity, that looks really bad for Massachusetts too, right?
Just as a state prosecution and as the whole process unfolds.
So they're in the worst spot here. But yeah, no,
(26:43):
I think Lindsay Clancy, she's going to the loony bin,
so to speak, and is not going to be found
guilty in this trial or the next.
Speaker 3 (26:51):
I think that's almost certainly where we are.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
I would also point out my wife has continued to
hammer this. She was talking about it this morning. She
was listening to a podcast about this case when I
walked in to brush my teeth and get ready to
come up and do the show. She is incredibly frustrated
and thinks this is setting back women immensely because if
(27:16):
the argument is women are too emotional and they're too
hormonal to such an extent, that they cannot be held
responsible for murdering their own three kids, how can you
argue that women need to be in positions of power
in any part of society?
Speaker 3 (27:34):
There is no man.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Can you think of a man that has been able
to get away by just saying, hey, my testosterone levels
are too high, I was too mentally unstable? It is
true that she's being held to a standard that is
far more lenient in terms of her behavior, based on
her inability to control her emotions, than we would ever
allow a man to be held accountable in that same way.
Speaker 3 (27:57):
That's 100% true. She's absolutely correct.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
And I would just say, you've also seen a gender
tribalism on display here. I know, did this, can I
just point out, I think it was last week, we
were getting, people were saying.
Speaker 3 (28:12):
It's not even a story. Producer Ali is in France
right now, okay? Not to blow.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
Producer Ali is on a well-deserved vacation with her wonderful husband.
They're having a great time.
Speaker 3 (28:23):
Do you know what's on all the TVs in France
right now? The Lindsay Clancy trial verdict, okay? Everywhere. This
has turned into.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
It was very quick how this happened, but it's like
an OJ-level... criminal justice story in terms of how much
interest there is. So I just want to note, you know,
some of you, you can send us your right buck
and Clay, I'm sorry, emails. But this is a huge story.
It's a very troubling story. It's really a gut punch
of a story. And I just think, Clay, this has shown,
(28:54):
as I was saying, a gender tribalism where I have
friends who are being told by women in their lives,
I'll just put it that way, you don't get a
vote on this, or your opinion doesn't matter on this,
which is a little bit of an extension of, I
will say, how some women treat the abortion argument. But
in this case in particular, I would still make the
(29:15):
case that that's about life and it doesn't matter what
one's gender is. But in this case, so you get
to kill your kids if you're a woman because sometimes
you get a little crazy?
Speaker 3 (29:25):
And men can't?
Speaker 2 (29:26):
This is my thing all along here has been, Clay,
the state of Massachusetts... has an obligation. Those are three
human beings.
Speaker 5 (29:32):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
That the force of the state, you know, men with
guns and and handcuffs should be deployed to protect the
people uh these three young people and now you know
after their horrific murder to arrest those guilty and to
achieve justice for them they are human beings who were
killed here it doesn't matter that their mother did it
(29:54):
in terms of the guilt of the individual if anything
it makes it.
Speaker 3 (29:58):
Much much worse Much worse than a stranger.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
But there's no special, you know, Clay, under ancient Roman law,
the male head of household could actually kill anybody in
his household. If I remember my Greco-Roman history, usually it
didn't happen with wives, but if you killed like a
slave in your household, slavery also existed 2,000 years ago.
That's a whole other conversation. It existed thousands of years
(30:22):
before that. This is a little bit of shades of
that where There are women who seem to think, well, look, postpartum,
things get crazy, and we've got to stand with our
postpartum sisters on this or something. This is loony talk.
This is crazy.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
It's immoral. It's demonic.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
It's dark. It's dark, dark, dark. And again, we're going
to take a ton of your calls and talkbacks. People
are flooding us right now. The other thing we should
say is.
And I got texted by somebody who's a friend this morning,
and she said, hey, you and Buck need to be
talking more about the fact the husband actually did this.
Speaker 3 (31:02):
I have a dear friend who takes the same position,
just so you know.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
A female friend who takes the same position, Clay, and
I am jaw on the table shocked that that's where
we are.
Speaker 1 (31:13):
So here is what I would say, and I have
said this before, but just take it. The defense did
not in any way suggest that anyone else was involved
in the murder. That is because there is no evidence
that anyone else was involved in the murder. The number
(31:33):
one thing you do if you are in a murder
trial to defend your client is say it was somebody else.
This was the theme of Remember the Fugitive when Dr.
Richard Kimball in the 1990s film, I believe, was based
on a 1970s Chicago.
Speaker 3 (31:51):
Area murder trial. It was based on a true story, yes, loosely.
Speaker 1 (31:55):
He said it was the one-armed man who actually committed
the murder, and I just came home and just found
myself there at that point in time. One of the
best defenses you can offer to reach reasonable doubt is
you have the wrong person held here for this crime.
Speaker 3 (32:12):
Didn't they do that on the OJ? Wasn't there an
OJ theory that there was somebody else that could have
done it?
Speaker 1 (32:17):
They tried to suggest, hey, it was somebody else who
committed the OJ trial, the OJ murder. It's one of
the best ways to build reasonable doubt as a defense
attorney is to say you've got the wrong person on
trial because if you're a juror, it's one thing to think, oh, hey,
are they responsible? What is the mental culpability? All those things.
Speaker 3 (32:40):
But if you send the wrong person to prison or
to the death penalty, sometimes that's compelling when it comes
to reasonable doubt, it has been not even suggested by
the defense attorneys. Like all of you, I'm really looking
forward to this three day weekend. I know some of
you work through the weekends and that's greatly appreciated, but
for a lot of us, we get that extra day.
And in my case, we're going to be very family
(33:00):
focused this weekend. I'm actually out in the woods with
Carrie and speed and ginger spice. We're having a great time. So,
We're going to.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
Have 100 or more photos and videos, I'm sure, of
our little guy and Ginger over the weekend. And that's
great because technology makes it easy. But back in the
day when I would go out in the woods for
a little family retreat with my dad, my mom, my siblings,
we didn't have that. In fact, my dad probably had
his 35-millimeter camera. his big old cassette VHS recorder thing
where he loved to do interviews on the fly. That's
(33:30):
the stuff that you can't look at now because you
don't have any means to play it, and you don't
know how to transfer it. You don't have the technology.
This is where Legacy Box comes in. Legacy Box takes
that old media for you, and this is a company
with all the gear, technology, and know-how to easily digitize
19 different forms of old media. Whatever you've got, photos, videos,
however you recorded it back in the day, they can
(33:52):
take it for you and make it digital now. They're
so good at this. Company's based in Tennessee. We love
this company, what it stands for. Millions of families have
already used Legacy Box.
Speaker 3 (34:01):
I have. Clay has.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
It's a great thing this weekend for the Labor Day weekend.
Get together with your family. Pull together this stuff. And,
you know, get your Legacy Box. You put it in
the box. You send it in.
Speaker 3 (34:11):
Digitized. So easy.
Speaker 2 (34:13):
Go to LegacyBox.com slash Buck. They've got a special sale today.
LegacyBox.com slash B-U-C-K.
Speaker 1 (34:22):
All right.
Speaker 2 (34:24):
Welcome back into Clay and Buck. So we are at
the mistrial of the Lindsay Clancy verdict.
Speaker 3 (34:29):
The huge news.
Speaker 2 (34:30):
And today, we want to get your voices in on this.
People feel very passionately about this. So we're going to
do something we don't usually do. We're going to take
some calls and talkbacks now. We will start the next hour.
So if you are a talkback, or rather, if you
are a live caller or you want to send in
a talkback, now is your time to get into this conversation.
But please, I would just say, when we put you on,
(34:50):
dive into it. Don't, you know, the weather here is
85 and it's breezy.
Speaker 4 (34:56):
No, no.
Speaker 2 (34:56):
We have tight timing here. We've got millions of people listening. So, Clay,
with that, let's go to, first up, Will in Florida.
Speaker 3 (35:02):
Let's go.
Speaker 7 (35:03):
Hey, guys. Great show. Former prosecutor here. Tried 30 jury
trials in state court. Mistrial is not necessarily the worst
thing for the prosecutors because they've already seen everything the
defense is going to do. So they can tailor their
strategy based on that.
Speaker 3 (35:20):
Okay. This is an interesting take. Let me just ask
you this, though. Sorry to cut you off.
Speaker 1 (35:25):
Losing 11-1 in a mistrial is different than losing 11-1
in your favor or 10-2 or 9-3. Have you ever
seen a jury vote 11-1 one way and then in
the second trial a different jury goes 12-0 in the
exact opposite direction?
Speaker 7 (35:44):
No, I think you're looking at something more like 8-4
in your favor on round two.
Speaker 3 (35:48):
Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 7 (35:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:50):
By the way, that's a good he makes a good point,
which is that the prosecution can do a better job.
But I don't I don't think it's about the prosecution's
case that they put on. I just think this is
so emotional for the jury. And I think the jury
people already said on it. It's very O.J. verdict ask
my friend in a lot of ways. Just it's gender,
not race. I think that it's even more. I appreciate
(36:11):
that call. That's a fantastic smart call.
Speaker 1 (36:13):
I think, but again, to go 11-1 against you to
12-0 for you, I think is why you're not hearing
the prosecutors throw very much of a fight up here.
I think deep down, they're ready for this case to
be over, and they don't want to do this trial.
Speaker 3 (36:28):
I don't want to.
Speaker 2 (36:29):
I mean, obviously, this makes it seem like they're not
taking it with the seriousness, but they do bet on
these kinds of things. I bet if you look at
the betting markets, Clay, for a second trial, I think
you would get a... probably five to one, maybe ten
to one odds that you'll have a not guilty by
reason of insanity.
Speaker 3 (36:47):
The flip side, but yes. Yeah. One to ten. Whatever.
You get what I'm... All right. Calls, calls, calls. We're
cutting into them next. We're going to hear from all
of you. Stay with us. Don't go anywhere. Lindsay Clancy trial.
Welcome in to the Friday edition of Play and Buck.
We predicted that this would be the likely case, but
as we head into the Labor Day weekend. There is
a pending mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case, and every
network is covering right now live in the courtroom. It appears, well,
(00:26):
let me play a couple of audio clips for you,
and then we will dive into what is going on.
And frankly, I've never heard of this before. The defense
is appealing to the Massachusetts Supreme Court to argue that
a juror should be dismissed. for I'm not sure exactly
(00:47):
the grounds that they are citing, but it has to
do with his behavior as part of a jury process.
And it looks like, Buck, and again, I'm going to
play the audio, that based on the way all of
the audio you are hearing is being reflected, that 11 jurors,
have essentially agreed that Lindsay Clancy is not guilty by
(01:11):
reason of insanity. That is, she killed all three of
her kids, and she's not responsible for that because she
was temporarily insane. Her hormones made her do it, basically.
And right now, it appears there is one lone juror
who is refusing to sign on with that. And for
(01:32):
the past couple of days, people have just been... attacking him,
I would imagine, in the jury room. And the pressure
has been ratcheted up outside. I've never really seen anything
like this. And maybe there's some trial attorneys out there
listening to us right now that have had an experience
similar to this. I've never really heard of anything like this, Buck.
(01:54):
I've never really seen anything like this. And again, this
is just analyzing the legal situation, not getting into opinions
surrounding it.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
So again, this is great because you've got Clay, who's
actually a lawyer, and me, who's a, I would like
to think, well-informed civilian, but not.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Actually a JD.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
And so I'll come at this from the perspective of
just pure common sense. Clay has the procedural, legal procedural expertise.
So this is where I'd say, I know, and this
comes from, I'll be honest, watching Law & Order episodes,
that you can have a For example, a judge can
(02:34):
set aside a jury verdict, which is shocking when people
find this out. But a judge is extremely rare. But
a judge can just say, no, I'm actually and there
has to be some greater reasoning or rationale beyond that.
But that is a real thing that can happen that
very few people know about. There's also clay like the
writ of mandamus.
Speaker 4 (02:54):
Right.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Where you're basically going to another court saying immediately, I
need you to weigh in on this.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
This is critical.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
I need the appeals court to come down and say
what's going on here is is outrageous and needs to
be stopped. And then you have and again, that's just
a civilian point of view of these things. I'm sure
there's greater explanation and understanding of it out there. But
in this case, Clay. You would just say to yourself,
(03:20):
hold on a second, the defense wants another judge to
remove a juror. What is the point of the jury
if the defense can just say, I don't like this
guy who is not giving me the verdict that I want?
Speaker 3 (03:37):
You know what I'm saying?
Speaker 2 (03:39):
On what basis? They're saying refuses to listen to the law.
That is an entirely subjective judgment that they are making
based upon outcome, not upon reasoning or rationale. The judge
here says, um has has had to deal with the
defense attorney and this came out yesterday so we kind
(04:00):
of knew what was going on the defense attorney said
11 jurors have made a decision and one juror will
not apply reasonable doubt no that's not actually what's happening
here that juror is allowed to have his own and
we know it's a him because the defense counsel also
kind of outed him but we also knew that in
the His application of the reasonable doubt standard is different
(04:23):
than the other jurors, and he's not budging on that
because too much is at stake. But you see what
I mean about this being– it's just an end run
if this were to be granted, but I don't think
it will. Sullivan has treated this as a disagreement inside deliberation.
It's not juror misconduct. The defense is calling for this
(04:43):
as though it's juror misconduct, like a juror got a
note from somebody outside or the juror took money or
did something that's illicit as part of the process. The
notion that you would remove somebody based on an emergency
appeal is outrageous.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
The fact that defense even tried this is kind of crazy, honestly.
So I've got so many thoughts on this. Let's play
the cuts so you can get a sense for why
we believe what is going on is going on. And again,
you have to use the context clues that we have,
which are the open mic moments in the courtroom. Let's
(05:20):
start with this because I think there's probably some people
out there who are not that familiar with the absolute latest.
Here is yesterday. I believe this is Lindsey Clancy's attorney.
Kevin Reddington saying there's one juror who refuses to listen
to the law. This is cut for.
Speaker 5 (05:39):
There's one juror who refuses to listen to the law
that you've given him or her on reasonable doubt. And
I suggest respectfully that the soft instruction that you gave
them saying at the sidebar, can you listen to the
law as I instruct you, does not work. focus on
the issue and if we come back here in a
(06:00):
half an hour with a mistrial because of a because
of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of
this court it's a shame it's a real.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
Shame okay so he's telling you a lot there when
he's saying if we come back with a mistrial because
of one juror he's letting everyone know basically 11 people
have agreed and for the defense attorney to be making
this argument The only reason he would be making this
argument is if he's trying to get the unanimous 12
(06:30):
not guilty. Now, the judge fired back at that. This
is him today, a little bit earlier in the courtroom,
cut three.
Speaker 5 (06:41):
Clearly, I would ask that you not just give them,
as I described it yesterday, a soft inquiry. Listen to
my instructions. I would ask that you specifically direct their
attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and re-instruct them
on that forcefully.
Speaker 4 (06:59):
I think I did that yesterday, didn't I? Yes.
Speaker 5 (07:02):
You did it yesterday. You did it soft. You didn't
do it forcefully. What do you want me to do?
Speaker 3 (07:08):
Get a brass band?
Speaker 4 (07:09):
I read the instruction as written by the SJC.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
The fact that I perhaps.
Speaker 4 (07:15):
Didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that.
I'm not an actor.
Speaker 3 (07:20):
I've just given the instructions.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Okay, Buck, a couple more here. Defense is acting in
histrionics here. This is absurd.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
But I have to say, the prosecutors not fighting back
against this in an aggressive way lets you know that
basically they feel like they've lost the case.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
Now, a couple more things. This just happened.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
The defense, as the judge is declaring a mistrial, says, hey,
give us an hour.
Speaker 3 (07:48):
We're in the middle of that hour.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
I don't know when the hour officially runs out We'll
explain exactly what's going on there, too. But this was
just the explosives in the courtroom. The explosive arguments cut
one over the defendant's objection.
Speaker 4 (08:04):
I'm going to declare a mistrial at this point.
Speaker 5 (08:06):
But that's all for his time to file a single
justice appeal for this travesty. That's what I'm asking for.
Speaker 4 (08:12):
So you're asking for emergency stay at this point?
Speaker 5 (08:14):
Yes. And the jurors don't have to come back tomorrow.
They can be told that. 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.
Speaker 4 (08:28):
If you want to go up and petition to the
SGC for a stay, I'll give you an hour before
we bring the jury back down. I think you could,
it's just a request for the stay of the declaration
of the mistrial. So I'll hold off for an hour
and then we'll come back in in regards to that.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Clay, this defense is abusing process here. This is nonsense.
He doesn't like the outcome he's getting. So he's acting
like there's some malfeasance that a court what court is
talking about the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
That's the SJC.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
What court is going to say, yeah, we're not even
really on this case. We're going to look at it
and just decide to overrule the verdict.
Speaker 5 (09:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
Let me play cut to this is his argument, because
whether you like it or not, this is what the
defense is saying. If you're saying what in the world's
going on here, they are saying basically that this juror
should be dismissed.
Speaker 3 (09:25):
Cut to clearly judge.
Speaker 5 (09:27):
We have a person who under their oath stood in
front of you yesterday when you did the individual idea.
And according to this information under oath, look you in
the eye and lied. That juror told you that he
would be able to apply the law to the facts
(09:49):
as you asked him. And based on this note from
this juror, it clearly and unequivocally indicates that they are
basically 11 to 1. 1. And this person will not
apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not
guilty verdict.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
OK, so this first of all, to me, Buck. I
got so many thoughts on this, but this part, I think,
is the most.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
Intriguing here.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Knowing exactly how the jurors are voting and to have
a note where, again, he says he so we know
it's one of the three men on this court on
this jury is refusing to find not guilty and to
be trying to get him dismissed. So that the other
11 jurors all in agreement can say not guilty. It
(10:44):
sounds like he's basing this on reports that are coming
from inside of the jury deliberation room where basically other
jurors are telling on this guy and saying he's not
behaving appropriately as a juror and therefore he could and
should be dismissed because the rest of us have a
(11:06):
unanimous verdict.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
Well, I think it's just pure inference, Clay, because if
he's getting information from the jury deliberations, that's going to
be a mistrial alone right there.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
I don't think it's inference. I think he's basic.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
I mean, he said there they have sidebar conversations. So
the juror note must say. I mean, he's basically let
it all be known now. What I'm surprised by is
that they've let the full deliberations of the jury now
go out into the public, and there is one guy
who is refusing.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
Just to be clear.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
And now it's all public. But his reason, Clay, it
has to be inference as to why the guy is refusing.
We know it's 11-1. But the other jurors, their opinion
of his application of the law would be absolutely irrelevant.
They have no standing to say, we think this juror...
The whole point of the jury is that everybody gets
to decide based on the evidence for themselves. This whole
(11:58):
thing is trying to basically muscle through the jury process
to stack it so that they get the... By the way,
she doesn't walk. What they want is a not guilty
by reason of insanity, and she goes to the insane asylum.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
That's what.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
That's what would happen if this guy folded. She goes
to the nuthouse. She doesn't get found guilty of murder. Clearly,
this guy, Clay, thinks because she did. Obviously, she killed
her three kids. He won't be a part of this.
And he is standing against this. All this stuff that
the defense attorney is saying, but he's not applying the law,
that's just the defense attorney's analysis.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
I think he knows that that's what the jurors are
telling them. But that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because
that juror is allowed to think whatever he wants about
the law.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
I think the argument is that, I'm guessing, again, we
usually don't get this degree of specificity from inside of
a jury, which is a sign that this thing is
totally off the rails. And now the judge, even as
outing Sorry, the defense attorney is saying he. Yesterday he
tried to say he or she. Today he is saying he.
(13:01):
So we know it's one of the three men based
on the way that he is talking here. My presumption
is that what is occurring is the judge is giving
them a charge and saying this is what you are
called to do. And my bet is that this guy
is saying in the jury room, I'm not applying reasonable doubt.
I'm not applying any of these standards, my bet. is
(13:23):
he's saying she's a mom and she killed her three
kids and we know it happened and I don't need
to know anything else. And so they are saying that
he is refusing to take the instructions from the judge
and apply them to the facts of the law. This
is my surmiso based on all this evidence and that
therefore he is violating his oath as a juror. and
(13:48):
should be removed from the case, which sometimes does happen. Now,
I think this is outrageous that we have ended up
in this situation, and certainly if I were on this jury,
I give credit to this guy because it's hard. It
might have been 11-1 for six days, Buck. Imagine what
it's like to be in that jury room. All he
has to do is say yes and he can leave,
(14:09):
and this guy is refusing to relent to the other jurors,
and now they're telling on him. and saying he's not
actually applying the law as he's required to do so, judge.
And as a result, the defense is saying he should
be off the case.
Speaker 6 (14:24):
Right.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
But my fundamental point here stands, which is that a
person on the jury is allowed to interpret the law
as he or she sees fit. The rest of the
jury saying this guy doesn't understand the law because they're
not getting their way cannot be.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
Otherwise, you'd never have a mistrial. You'd just be like,
boot the guy out who doesn't agree.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Imagine that he said, hey, I don't think a black
person could be guilty of murder and therefore I will
not find a black person guilty of murder.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
That would be juror misconduct.
Speaker 4 (14:57):
Right.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
The jury, in theory, would be removed even though his
position is one that is valid inside of the like
you have an obligation as a juror to apply the
law in some way.
Speaker 4 (15:11):
Right.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
You can't just say I won't convict somebody.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
But this is clearly a very contentious area of the
application of law in this case. So you're coming up
with no. If this guy is completely insane and says
something crazy, then he should be removed. We're talking about
something that 50% of the country disagrees with the other 50%
on right now.
Speaker 3 (15:29):
Potentially.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
I'm just saying this is unprecedented to have the actual
votes of the jurors out there. I agree with the
guy who is saying not guilty. He may just be
not very articulate in the way he's saying it. If
he's saying I refuse to apply the law as part
of the way that he is voting, then he is
(15:51):
potentially opening himself up to a mess.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
There's, I mean, I don't think anybody in the jury
room is so stupid as to be like, I'm not
a plug.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
Why hold out? If you're going to say that, do
you know what I'm saying? You wouldn't, there's no, that's crazy.
I get it.
Speaker 1 (16:04):
Um, but I'm trying to explain what I think is
going on here because the judge decided to not have
the mistress posted by eight minutes.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
It's extremely unusual to your point. They, the only thing
can be these notes. The notes can be basically whatever
they want. It goes to the judge first, then to
the defense. Clay, Clay, It is extremely unusual, according to
all the research that we can do on the fly
here for a jury to single out another juror and
basically say this person's a moron. I've never I've never
(16:33):
heard of it before, which is why I'm saying like
this whole scenario is just absolutely bonkers.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
That alone could be grounds for some kind of a mistrial.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
We went so long. We've got to go to break.
We'll have a short segment here. We're fired up. 800-282-2882.
Eight minutes away in theory from the judge coming back
and updating us on this. laugh learn and hang with
the guys clay and buck preset on the iheart app
hey welcome back in uh we got fired up we're
(17:03):
continuing to be fired up i want to tell you
if you're fired up about the return of college football
hard rock bet i love these guys you can get
hooked up i stayed up late last night buck has
no idea this game was going on congratulations colorado beat
georgia tech That was one I did not see coming.
I have got a pick for you. Florida State's going
(17:24):
to beat SMU outright, but you get them as a
three-point underdog. If you bet $ 5, you get $ 100 in
bonus bets. If you go to hardrock.bet.com, that is hardrock.bet.com.
No matter if you've played before or not, $ 5 bet,
you get $ 100 bonus. bonus bets in your account you
(17:46):
can play in arizona colorado florida illinois indiana michigan new
jersey ohio virginia and my home state of tennessee hard
rock dot bet slash play we'll.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Take your calls guys so light up those lines attorneys
go to the front of the line on this one
if you've had courtroom experience want to hear from you
but everybody weigh in on those lines look picture this
you're at work your phone buzzes it's your teenager's number
and it's your kid's voice panic saying he's been in
an accident needs money wired right now you'd move heaven
and earth for that wouldn't you That's what a scammer
is counting on. Here's the play. Criminals buy your info
(18:17):
from data brokers online. Then they grab your kid's voice
off a video, clone it with AI, and make that call.
You can't stop them from cloning your kid's voice, but
you can make sure they never get your phone number
in the first place. And this is done with Incogni's help.
Incogni is an online service that removes your name from
hundreds of databases and people search sites. Incogni does that
by contacting each of them on your behalf, forcing them
(18:38):
to delete your personal info. Then Incogni works to keep
it gone. Kali and I are both using Incogni to
remove our info from as many of these data broker
sites as possible. Go to incogni.com slash buck. That's I-N-C-O-G-N-I
incogni.com slash buck at 60% off their regular prices. Incogni.com
slash buck. Use buck as your promo code for 60% off.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Welcome back in. We were talking off the air. I
think this is important to point out too. Where the
heck is the prosecution? The defense is dominating the Every
one of these motions creating huge storylines, letting it be
known how the jurors are voting, everything associated with it.
To me, this is a sign that the prosecution actually
(19:23):
is OK with her being found not guilty because they
don't want to have to retry this case. And if
she's found not guilty once and for all, this is decided.
If it's a mistrial, then the pressure goes to the
state of Massachusetts to potentially retry her. But if you've
already lost basically 11 to 1 in the first trial,
(19:46):
what are the odds that you're going to get a
12-0 the other way? direction in the second trial? I
think that's tough.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
I also just think we need to keep. Letting everyone know,
first of all, I think it's no surprise to you.
If I were on that jury or Clay was on
that jury, it would be guilty of first degree murder. OK,
I mean, meaning our votes. So that's just so everyone
just to get on the record. But I also think
we need to point out it's not not guilty, period.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
She walks.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
It's not guilty by reason of criminal insanity. And therefore
she is guilty. put into a mental facility. She doesn't
just walk out of there like nothing happened. Now, I
don't think that's the proper outcome. I think that's outrageous.
But not guilty to a lot of people, Clay, sounds like, oh,
you know, she walks, right?
Speaker 3 (20:27):
She doesn't walk.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
It's not guilty by reason of criminal insanity, which under
Massachusetts law means she is involuntarily committed to a criminal
psychiatric facility.
Speaker 3 (20:35):
Unless I'm missing something. Yeah, that's right. But she could
be out in as few as 40 days.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
This is very much like Primal Fear, the movie with
Richard Gere and Ed Norton, where he basically works in
insanity defense. I'm going to spoiler alert, works in insanity
defense into an extremely brutal murder trial. Uh, and, and
at the end it's like he was actually just playing
a game and they realized, Oh, this guy could be
(21:02):
out in 90 days.
Speaker 4 (21:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
And that's the whole thing.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
Again, that is if she has found, um, mentally capable,
she would be out of the insane asylum and a
hundred percent free in as little as 40 days. Now
it's possible that the state of Massachusetts is going to
keep her there longer. Um, But all of this is
(21:27):
chaos and we are following it in real time. And
not surprisingly, a lot of you have questions. And to
be fair, I've never seen anything like this. I don't
imagine most attorneys out there, even ones who have been
doing trial work in a criminal capacity for a long time.
have been either. And sorry, I'm watching right now in
(21:48):
real time trying to assess. They keep running the same footage.
Is it live, live inside of the courtroom or not?
I think we're not live with the judge right now,
but guys, if you in our New York City studio
can also help me with this so that do we have,
I believe we do, the capacity to take this live
(22:10):
if they are going back to the judge live with
any of this officially inside of the courtroom, we will
be able to go to you.
Speaker 3 (22:19):
A bunch of calls. Michelle in Tennessee, fire away.
Speaker 6 (22:25):
They've got it wrong. I think the loan dissent is
a not guilty and the reasonable doubt inference is being
scrutinized because you don't have to find somebody guilty immediately.
It doesn't have to be absolute guilt. It can be
a reasonable guilt. And I think that that's what's going
(22:45):
on here is that 11 people see that she is
definitely guilty. And the one holdout is like, well, you've
not proven it to be absolute.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
That doesn't make any sense, Michelle. I appreciate the argument.
It doesn't make any sense. Let me explain why her juror,
her defense is making this motion to get this juror
kicked off the jury. If the defense were trying to
kick off the one person who was on the side
of the defense, that would mean that the client was
(23:15):
going to be convicted. Her attorney should then be immediately
disbarred because he's too dumb to be able to represent
a client. I appreciate the call. This is not that. Now,
if you want to argue, and I do think this again,
I'm surprised more people aren't asking this. The prosecution just
kind of meekly sitting in their chairs and letting the
(23:38):
defense say, I'm appealing this to the Supreme Court and
not standing up and saying, this is outrageous, Judge. What
in the world are you attempting to do here? This
is unprecedented. To me, it suggests that they just want
this case done and they don't want to try to
convict her again. Because if you had a mistrial, basically,
(23:59):
it's like this thing never happened and you just go
for round two. They spent a month making the best
case they could, and they lost, at best, 11 to 1.
How much better could the prosecution do? I think they're
probably sitting around thinking about this themselves. To get a 12-0,
(24:20):
this jury has to be a wildly outrageous, outlandish representation
of the jury pool, and they would go get a
different result with another 12. That doesn't seem likely to me.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
I agree.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
I mean, I think what you've seen here is that
the jury pool, particularly of women in Massachusetts on this issue,
you will have at least one who would not go
in the other direction and convict. There's no chance that
you're going to find 12 people that are going to
convict on first degree murder. So the issue here is,
I mean, I think I think Lindsay Clancy is going
to a mental facility one way or another. And I think, though, that, Clay,
(24:58):
they may have to retry it. And the only other,
all the only alternative would be to let her, um,
plead to a lesser charge.
Speaker 3 (25:06):
But if you're the defense attorney, why would you take that?
Speaker 1 (25:09):
I think, you know, you don't take it because you
just basically nearly got a not guilty verdict, uh, unless
it's something really minor, like, Hey, she's probably spent time
in prison already. I would imagine if they say, Hey,
you'll do two years in prison and then you'll be
free and clear. Um, that which in some ways would
(25:30):
be maybe even worse in a sense arguably yeah you
know then the other thing is i think the state
of massachusetts i by the way your your point about
the prosecution i think is is extremely um important right
now because the defense attorney is going wild he's demanding
there's you know the the court come in from above
(25:51):
the uh the appeals court and And he's talking. He
knows that he has all the leverage right now and
that things are going in his direction. And the prosecution,
you pointed this out, you're correct, is very kind of
passive about this because I think they realize they don't
have a better shot at the next round.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
It's astonishing to me that only one person sees this
case for what it is so far on this jury.
Speaker 3 (26:14):
And then beyond that, Clay.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
I think it's just a really embarrassing to anyone who
actually understands.
Speaker 3 (26:21):
Well, I would just say reality, not even the law.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
If the state of Massachusetts brings this case again, only
to send her to a psychiatric facility, not guilty by
reason of insanity, that looks really bad for Massachusetts too, right?
Just as a state prosecution and as the whole process unfolds.
So they're in the worst spot here. But yeah, no,
(26:43):
I think Lindsay Clancy, she's going to the loony bin,
so to speak, and is not going to be found
guilty in this trial or the next.
Speaker 3 (26:51):
I think that's almost certainly where we are.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
I would also point out my wife has continued to
hammer this. She was talking about it this morning. She
was listening to a podcast about this case when I
walked in to brush my teeth and get ready to
come up and do the show. She is incredibly frustrated
and thinks this is setting back women immensely because if
(27:16):
the argument is women are too emotional and they're too
hormonal to such an extent, that they cannot be held
responsible for murdering their own three kids, how can you
argue that women need to be in positions of power
in any part of society?
Speaker 3 (27:34):
There is no man.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Can you think of a man that has been able
to get away by just saying, hey, my testosterone levels
are too high, I was too mentally unstable? It is
true that she's being held to a standard that is
far more lenient in terms of her behavior, based on
her inability to control her emotions, than we would ever
allow a man to be held accountable in that same way.
Speaker 3 (27:57):
That's 100% true. She's absolutely correct.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
And I would just say, you've also seen a gender
tribalism on display here. I know, did this, can I
just point out, I think it was last week, we
were getting, people were saying.
Speaker 3 (28:12):
It's not even a story. Producer Ali is in France
right now, okay? Not to blow.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
Producer Ali is on a well-deserved vacation with her wonderful husband.
They're having a great time.
Speaker 3 (28:23):
Do you know what's on all the TVs in France
right now? The Lindsay Clancy trial verdict, okay? Everywhere. This
has turned into.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
It was very quick how this happened, but it's like
an OJ-level... criminal justice story in terms of how much
interest there is. So I just want to note, you know,
some of you, you can send us your right buck
and Clay, I'm sorry, emails. But this is a huge story.
It's a very troubling story. It's really a gut punch
of a story. And I just think, Clay, this has shown,
(28:54):
as I was saying, a gender tribalism where I have
friends who are being told by women in their lives,
I'll just put it that way, you don't get a
vote on this, or your opinion doesn't matter on this,
which is a little bit of an extension of, I
will say, how some women treat the abortion argument. But
in this case in particular, I would still make the
(29:15):
case that that's about life and it doesn't matter what
one's gender is. But in this case, so you get
to kill your kids if you're a woman because sometimes
you get a little crazy?
Speaker 3 (29:25):
And men can't?
Speaker 2 (29:26):
This is my thing all along here has been, Clay,
the state of Massachusetts... has an obligation. Those are three
human beings.
Speaker 5 (29:32):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
That the force of the state, you know, men with
guns and and handcuffs should be deployed to protect the
people uh these three young people and now you know
after their horrific murder to arrest those guilty and to
achieve justice for them they are human beings who were
killed here it doesn't matter that their mother did it
(29:54):
in terms of the guilt of the individual if anything
it makes it.
Speaker 3 (29:58):
Much much worse Much worse than a stranger.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
But there's no special, you know, Clay, under ancient Roman law,
the male head of household could actually kill anybody in
his household. If I remember my Greco-Roman history, usually it
didn't happen with wives, but if you killed like a
slave in your household, slavery also existed 2,000 years ago.
That's a whole other conversation. It existed thousands of years
(30:22):
before that. This is a little bit of shades of
that where There are women who seem to think, well, look, postpartum,
things get crazy, and we've got to stand with our
postpartum sisters on this or something. This is loony talk.
This is crazy.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
It's immoral. It's demonic.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
It's dark. It's dark, dark, dark. And again, we're going
to take a ton of your calls and talkbacks. People
are flooding us right now. The other thing we should
say is.
And I got texted by somebody who's a friend this morning,
and she said, hey, you and Buck need to be
talking more about the fact the husband actually did this.
Speaker 3 (31:02):
I have a dear friend who takes the same position,
just so you know.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
A female friend who takes the same position, Clay, and
I am jaw on the table shocked that that's where
we are.
Speaker 1 (31:13):
So here is what I would say, and I have
said this before, but just take it. The defense did
not in any way suggest that anyone else was involved
in the murder. That is because there is no evidence
that anyone else was involved in the murder. The number
(31:33):
one thing you do if you are in a murder
trial to defend your client is say it was somebody else.
This was the theme of Remember the Fugitive when Dr.
Richard Kimball in the 1990s film, I believe, was based
on a 1970s Chicago.
Speaker 3 (31:51):
Area murder trial. It was based on a true story, yes, loosely.
Speaker 1 (31:55):
He said it was the one-armed man who actually committed
the murder, and I just came home and just found
myself there at that point in time. One of the
best defenses you can offer to reach reasonable doubt is
you have the wrong person held here for this crime.
Speaker 3 (32:12):
Didn't they do that on the OJ? Wasn't there an
OJ theory that there was somebody else that could have
done it?
Speaker 1 (32:17):
They tried to suggest, hey, it was somebody else who
committed the OJ trial, the OJ murder. It's one of
the best ways to build reasonable doubt as a defense
attorney is to say you've got the wrong person on
trial because if you're a juror, it's one thing to think, oh, hey,
are they responsible? What is the mental culpability? All those things.
Speaker 3 (32:40):
But if you send the wrong person to prison or
to the death penalty, sometimes that's compelling when it comes
to reasonable doubt, it has been not even suggested by
the defense attorneys. Like all of you, I'm really looking
forward to this three day weekend. I know some of
you work through the weekends and that's greatly appreciated, but
for a lot of us, we get that extra day.
And in my case, we're going to be very family
(33:00):
focused this weekend. I'm actually out in the woods with
Carrie and speed and ginger spice. We're having a great time. So,
We're going to.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
Have 100 or more photos and videos, I'm sure, of
our little guy and Ginger over the weekend. And that's
great because technology makes it easy. But back in the
day when I would go out in the woods for
a little family retreat with my dad, my mom, my siblings,
we didn't have that. In fact, my dad probably had
his 35-millimeter camera. his big old cassette VHS recorder thing
where he loved to do interviews on the fly. That's
(33:30):
the stuff that you can't look at now because you
don't have any means to play it, and you don't
know how to transfer it. You don't have the technology.
This is where Legacy Box comes in. Legacy Box takes
that old media for you, and this is a company
with all the gear, technology, and know-how to easily digitize
19 different forms of old media. Whatever you've got, photos, videos,
however you recorded it back in the day, they can
(33:52):
take it for you and make it digital now. They're
so good at this. Company's based in Tennessee. We love
this company, what it stands for. Millions of families have
already used Legacy Box.
Speaker 3 (34:01):
I have. Clay has.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
It's a great thing this weekend for the Labor Day weekend.
Get together with your family. Pull together this stuff. And,
you know, get your Legacy Box. You put it in
the box. You send it in.
Speaker 3 (34:11):
Digitized. So easy.
Speaker 2 (34:13):
Go to LegacyBox.com slash Buck. They've got a special sale today.
LegacyBox.com slash B-U-C-K.
Speaker 1 (34:22):
All right.
Speaker 2 (34:24):
Welcome back into Clay and Buck. So we are at
the mistrial of the Lindsay Clancy verdict.
Speaker 3 (34:29):
The huge news.
Speaker 2 (34:30):
And today, we want to get your voices in on this.
People feel very passionately about this. So we're going to
do something we don't usually do. We're going to take
some calls and talkbacks now. We will start the next hour.
So if you are a talkback, or rather, if you
are a live caller or you want to send in
a talkback, now is your time to get into this conversation.
But please, I would just say, when we put you on,
(34:50):
dive into it. Don't, you know, the weather here is
85 and it's breezy.
Speaker 4 (34:56):
No, no.
Speaker 2 (34:56):
We have tight timing here. We've got millions of people listening. So, Clay,
with that, let's go to, first up, Will in Florida.
Speaker 3 (35:02):
Let's go.
Speaker 7 (35:03):
Hey, guys. Great show. Former prosecutor here. Tried 30 jury
trials in state court. Mistrial is not necessarily the worst
thing for the prosecutors because they've already seen everything the
defense is going to do. So they can tailor their
strategy based on that.
Speaker 3 (35:20):
Okay. This is an interesting take. Let me just ask
you this, though. Sorry to cut you off.
Speaker 1 (35:25):
Losing 11-1 in a mistrial is different than losing 11-1
in your favor or 10-2 or 9-3. Have you ever
seen a jury vote 11-1 one way and then in
the second trial a different jury goes 12-0 in the
exact opposite direction?
Speaker 7 (35:44):
No, I think you're looking at something more like 8-4
in your favor on round two.
Speaker 3 (35:48):
Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 7 (35:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:50):
By the way, that's a good he makes a good point,
which is that the prosecution can do a better job.
But I don't I don't think it's about the prosecution's
case that they put on. I just think this is
so emotional for the jury. And I think the jury
people already said on it. It's very O.J. verdict ask
my friend in a lot of ways. Just it's gender,
not race. I think that it's even more. I appreciate
(36:11):
that call. That's a fantastic smart call.
Speaker 1 (36:13):
I think, but again, to go 11-1 against you to
12-0 for you, I think is why you're not hearing
the prosecutors throw very much of a fight up here.
I think deep down, they're ready for this case to
be over, and they don't want to do this trial.
Speaker 3 (36:28):
I don't want to.
Speaker 2 (36:29):
I mean, obviously, this makes it seem like they're not
taking it with the seriousness, but they do bet on
these kinds of things. I bet if you look at
the betting markets, Clay, for a second trial, I think
you would get a... probably five to one, maybe ten
to one odds that you'll have a not guilty by
reason of insanity.
Speaker 3 (36:47):
The flip side, but yes. Yeah. One to ten. Whatever.
You get what I'm... All right. Calls, calls, calls. We're
cutting into them next. We're going to hear from all
of you. Stay with us. Don't go anywhere. Lindsay Clancy trial.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!