September 2, 2026 • 29 mins
Breaking news from the Lindsay Clancy trial dominates Hour 2 as jurors are sent home after reporting a second deadlock. Legal analyst Greg Jarrett joins Sean to explain the judge’s forceful instruction to keep deliberating, why the jury may still find a compromise, and why a mistrial now appears increasingly possible. Sean also opens the phones to listeners, including a psychiatrist who offers a sharply different view of insanity, intent, and whether severe mental illness can coexist with planning and deliberate actions.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right, we have breaking news right at this moment.
It appears that the jurors have been excused for the
day in the Lindsay Clancy trial. Earlier today, they did
tell the judge for the second time that they are
unable to come to a unanimous decision. You know, to
(00:20):
their credit, they've gone back now for a second time
and spent an enormous amount of time trying to take
the judge's instructions seriously when they when they came out
earlier today and said they were unable to come to
a unanimous decision the judge kind of amplified wait what
what should happen when jurors cannot agree we're going to
(00:43):
be joined by greg jarrett getting reaction all this in
a second But let me play what went down earlier today.
They now have been sent home after another deadlock. They're
dismissed for the day after being instructed by the judge
to go back for a second time.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Here's how that played out earlier today.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
For the record, 12 deliberating jurors and six alternates in
the Manor Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
All other parties are present.
Speaker 4 (01:07):
All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. All right.
Speaker 5 (01:11):
Members of the jury, I've got you a question, or
probably more of a statement than a question, saying after
much deliberation, we are still unable to come to a
unanimous decision.
Speaker 4 (01:23):
Now, based on that, I'm going to give you another instruction,
all right? And it's this.
Speaker 5 (01:31):
Our Constitution and laws provide that in a criminal case,
the principal way for deciding questions of fact is by
the verdict of a jury. In most cases, perhaps strictly
speaking in all cases, absolute certainty cannot be attained, nor
is it expected. The verdict to which a juror agrees
(01:52):
must be their own, the result of their own convictions,
and not a mere acquiescence in the conclusions of their
fellow jurors. Yet, in order to bring 12 minds to
a unanimous result, you must examine the questions submitted to
you with candor and with proper regard and deference and
respect to the opinions of each other. You should consider
(02:16):
that it is desirable that the case be decided and
that you have been selected in the same manner and
from the same source from which any future jury would be.
Speaker 4 (02:27):
There is no.
Speaker 5 (02:28):
Reason to suppose that the case will ever be submitted
to 12 persons more intelligent, more impartial, or more competent
to decide it, or that more or.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
Clearer evidence will be produced.
Speaker 5 (02:42):
And with this in mind, it's your duty to decide
the case if you can do it conscientiously. In order
to make a decision more attainable, the law imposes the
burden of proof on one party or the other in
all cases. In the present case, a criminal case, the
burden of proof is on the Commonwealth to establish every
(03:04):
element of the crime charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Speaker 4 (03:08):
If you are left in doubt of any element.
Speaker 5 (03:10):
Of the crime, the defendant is entitled to the benefit
of the doubt and must be acquitted.
Speaker 4 (03:17):
However, in conferring together, you.
Speaker 5 (03:20):
Ought to pay proper respect to each other's opinions and
listen with an open mind to each other's arguments. Thus,
where there is disagreement, jurors for acquittal should consider whether
a doubt in their own minds is a reasonable one
if it makes no impression on the mind's of others
(03:41):
who are equally honest, equally intelligent, and who have heard
the same evidence with the same attention, with an equal
desire to arrive at the truth, and who have taken.
Speaker 4 (03:50):
The same oath as jurors.
Speaker 5 (03:53):
On the other hand, Jurors for conviction ought seriously to
ask themselves whether they may not reasonably doubt the correctness
of a judgment that is not concurred in by other
members of the jury and whether they should distrust the
weight or adequacy of the evidence that fails to convince
the minds of fellow jurors. With that, I now ask
(04:16):
you to return to your deliberations with these thoughts in mind.
Speaker 4 (04:20):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
All right. That was earlier today.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
Now the jury has been sent home and will reconvene
tomorrow at 9 a.m. for day six of deliberation. Joining
us now, Fox News contributor, Fox News legal analyst, number
one New York Times bestselling author, our friend Greg Jarrett
is with us. Now, my understanding is that there's only
one more time that the jury can come back and
(04:46):
say they can't reach a unanimous verdict, that the judge
can mandate them to go back and deliberate. So it
seems that they're trying. I mean, they've spent an inordinate
amount of time since the first time they went to
the judge doing more deliberations. Then they came back today
and they said, we're not getting there. And then the
judge gave them the instructions we just played. Now they've
(05:09):
continued that for hours and now they have been dismissed
for the rest of the day.
Speaker 6 (05:13):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
my interpretation is simply that they're not going to reach
a verdict the probably there are people in that jury
room that are dug in uh... can kick is a
possible to overcome that disagreement of course there is but
in my mind great jared i look at murder one
is off the table man uh... probably murder two is
off the table maybe outside shot manslaughter and then as
(05:37):
a matter where it goes from there yeah i.
Speaker 6 (05:39):
Think your assessment is uh... pretty accurate uh... The clip
you played is what's nicknamed the dynamite charge. They call
it something different in Massachusetts, but that's what it is.
And Sullivan was reading an approved instruction from the higher
courts in Massachusetts that have litigated dynamite charges and have said,
(06:02):
here's what you can say. And so the judge strictly
read it. What can be said? Don't abandon your convictions,
but go back in there and seriously consider opposing views
and then reassess your own position. And that's, you know,
that's a common sense instruction. A deadlock jury does not
(06:24):
necessarily mean that a verdict cannot be reached because, you know, Sean,
we don't know what the numbers are in the jury room.
Speaker 4 (06:31):
Is it 6-6?
Speaker 6 (06:31):
Is it 9-3?
Speaker 7 (06:31):
Is it 11-1?
Speaker 6 (06:32):
And in whose favor? If there's a single holdout, then yeah,
there's a greater chance of unanimity one way or the other.
We also don't really know the dynamics in that jury room.
Momentum can change over time. Just how adamant or firm
(06:53):
are each side or some jurors persuadable? Might a compromise
resolve the impasse and what would the compromise be? the
lesser included second-degree murder, or the involuntary manslaughter, Sean, as
you suggest. Now, having said that, you know, this case
is somewhat unique because it's the kind of defense which
(07:17):
is rare, and it's centered on something controversial, a postpartum illness.
And that tends to evoke strong passions on either side.
There seems to be little middle ground. You either believe
it or you don't. And that may be where the
jury is. They're split, but they're vehement and uncompromising in
(07:39):
their opinions. So, in fact, we could be headed for
a mistrial.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
I'd say the odds lean heavily in favor of that.
We were both on the same page, and obviously you
hold more weight. on this topic because it's your background,
your area of expertise, not only were you a practicing lawyer, but,
you know, all the years you have been involved in
high profile cases. This is not your first rodeo. You
(08:08):
have covered these cases comprehensively, you know, going back to
the O.J. Simpson case, for crying out loud.
Speaker 4 (08:14):
So.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
You know, my interpretation of this is they are probably
hopelessly deadlocked, but they're trying.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
And I give them credit for trying.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
But then I get into this whole other issue, which
only I think I'll bring up, which is, you know,
the jury pool in Massachusetts is not exactly lean conservative.
And that might mean they are more susceptible to some
of the defense's arguments. I do believe, as you do.
that the burden of proof that was rightly, and the
(08:43):
judge pointed it out, on the Commonwealth, that that level,
that intent was proven. But I can understand people, you know,
trying their best, and yet they can't get there. They
listen to the defense. They listen to the arguments of
the defense and some of their expert witnesses. So it's
hard to predict, but I think we're probably looking at
(09:04):
a hung jury. That's my best guess.
Speaker 4 (09:06):
Agree? Agree.
Speaker 6 (09:07):
Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. And part of the problem is,
and you allude to this, it's obviously a complicated case,
both factually and legally. Because to convict Clancy of first-degree murder,
the jury has to be unanimous in its decision beyond
any reasonable doubt that Clancy was, two things. Number one,
(09:32):
sane under the legal definition. and number two, that she
was capable of forming criminal intent to take the lives
of her three children and did so either with premeditation
or extreme atrocity or cruelty. That's how the statute in
Massachusetts reads. Given the conflicting evidence and the contradictory expert
(09:56):
testimony presented at trial, it's not easy to to achieve
unanimity on both the facts and the law. In fact,
it's quite hard, because on the one hand, the defense
did offer credible evidence of severe mental illness brought about
by postpartum depression, then exacerbated by quote-unquote bad doctors over
(10:21):
medication that arguably made her condition worse. Did she really
suffer a singular psychotic event that drove her to kill?
On the other hand, the prosecution presented persuasive psychiatric testimony
that called into doubt the claimed psychosis. She had two
experts in rebuttal who called it nonsense, especially in light
(10:45):
of The evidence that she used her computer, for example,
to research the amount of time she needed to distract
her husband's whereabouts, to carry out the killings in his absence. Now,
that takes a certain amount of willfulness and deliberation, and
that supports the murder charge. And in fact, in closing arguments,
(11:07):
the lead prosecutor did an impressive job of laying out
the critical timelines involved. So this is not an easy
case by any stretch.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
What did you think of the defense attorney specifically attacking
me by name and the men on my show, which
includes you, and then attacking Nancy Grace, a victim, a
crime victim herself, 19, engaged, fiance, brutally murdered. I mean,
nearly destroyed her whole life and turned her into a
(11:41):
victim's advocate and then later a prosecutor.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
You know, the queen of mean. And I've had many
women commenting on this case. You were on with some
of them.
Speaker 4 (11:51):
Yes.
Speaker 6 (11:52):
You know, I saw Reddington's remarks, Hannity and his men.
I guess you're one.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
Of my men. We've got a posse going on here.
I don't know.
Speaker 6 (12:03):
What Reddington forgets is that he's a man, and there
are men on the jury, as if they can't be
fair and impartial and objective. I stand by the comments
I made last Friday night on your program.
Speaker 5 (12:21):
Uh.
Speaker 6 (12:21):
that braddington apparently didn't like he put forth i said
it at the time a compelling case for insanity but
then he stumbled during a wandering closing argument that's my
opinion at least uh... you know and i put.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
She never is the worst thing he said is the
prosecution is destroying the soul of this woman right and
then he also said she never did a thing wrong
in her in her life she's such a good mother
I'm like, really? What about the souls of the kids,
and what good mother kills their kid, even if it
was under duress?
Speaker 6 (13:00):
Yeah, when you say something patently absurd and arguably offensive,
and I think those comments were, you run the risk
of alienating jurors, and you squander your most valuable asset,
which is credibility.
Speaker 7 (13:19):
It was uh.
Speaker 6 (13:19):
lashed out at you in your program and i guess
myself and nancy grace because he didn't like the criticism
that tells me he's not only thin-skinned but the critique
that uh... was leveled at him may have resonated with
him as accurate ended there's an old saying uh... problem
(13:40):
is the best closing argument i ever gave was gave
was in the car ride home after the trial.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
You know, there's a great saying attributed to Ben Franklin,
the sting in any rebuke is the truth. Maybe it
was the truth that bugged him. Greg, we really appreciate
your time. Thanks for being with us. We'll take calls,
by the way, when we get back. Later on, Big
and Rich will be on the program. 800-941-SHAWN if you
want to be a part of the program. All right,
let's get on our busy telephones. Kenny is in North Carolina. Kenny, hi,
(14:12):
how are you? Glad you called. Are you going to
vote for the guy that let out the person that
was responsible for the murder of a number of people, apparently?
Speaker 8 (14:22):
I was going to talk about the Lindsay Clancy thing. Like,
people are talking about how there's only three men on
the jury, and it's up to them to kind of
sway it. It really wasn't. I mean, as a Gen Z,
I kind of seen this as a downstream effect of
the culture war. Basically, you go anywhere with, you know,
modern women and stuff, and this will happen. I went
(14:44):
to a party yesterday and kind of like just started
talking about it. And the whole room went one way
and it's not the way that you or I would
want it to. And I watched how men who I
respected and knew kind of just stood by and like
went quiet. And so I think that we're going to
be seeing a lot more stuff like this in the future. Sorry.
(15:07):
And basically that we're basically seeing these people not acting
on justice and principles, but after their beliefs or how
they feel it happened. You know, this is becoming a
larger issue with court in America.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
Kenny, I did this whole thing yesterday where we had
both sides of this debate on, Nancy Grace and Tiffany Smiley.
And I did it because of the very reason that
you're bringing up here, which is we're going to see
a lot more of this. And I think the fact
that lawyers around the country are are watching this unfold
(15:43):
and watching the public reaction to this is only fueling
their fire for, quote, their clients. And I think you'll
see a lot more of the insanity defense. However, let
me tell you another thing. And I've mentioned this many,
many times and I mentioned it earlier today. Jurisdictions matter
is a reason that people go judge shopping. Now, the
(16:06):
jurisdiction in Massachusetts is what it is, and I'm not
disparaging the jury in any way. I'll just believe that
they gave it their all. They took their responsibility seriously.
But when you have in Massachusetts not a single elected
Republican in Washington and a governor that just signed a
(16:28):
bill that allows abortion up to the moment of birth,
the jury pool is not exactly conservative or as conservative.
and your state of North Carolina, my free state of Florida.
So we'll see what happens. But I do appreciate your call, Kenny.
I think you are right. Jerry is in Texas. God
bless Texas. Jerry, how are you? You're not voting for
(16:48):
six-gender Tallarico. God is non-binary. Trans biological men should have
access to abortion, are you?
Speaker 3 (16:55):
You don't have to worry about that, Sean. Greetings from
the great state of Texas, by the way. I'm still
mad at you for choosing Florida over Texas, by the way, but...
But we'll let bygones be bygones.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
Well, wait a minute.
Speaker 1 (17:08):
I am an honorary Texan. Rick Perry made me one,
so I'm very grateful.
Speaker 3 (17:13):
We accept you for that. We appreciate that. On this crazy,
clancy case, I just want to congratulate you and thank
you for finally getting people to focus on what really
matters in this whole case. It's not about evidence. It's
not about facts. This is the focus is on this
(17:36):
is a Massachusetts court. These are Massachusetts jurors, a super blue,
ultra liberal state with just they've just shown in the
past their officials and everyone, their governor. You just mentioned
the ban on abortion right up to birth or allowing
(17:57):
abortion right up to birth. They don't have a great
interest in justice or law and order or accountability or
concern for life. I'm even now hearing people talking about, well,
this was a mercy killing. My God, what are you
talking about? A mercy killing. Look at these white women
(18:20):
outside the courtroom. I mean, focused entirely on victimization, empathy,
compassion for Clancy. They they can't digest the facts or
the evidence. And so they just go to all of
this emotional garbage. They lack total common sense about this.
(18:41):
And she clearly, I thought the prosecution did a great
job in the final argument, just blowing up the whole
idea that she didn't have any control. She manipulated the
crap out of that That family manipulated her husband. I mean,
she knew what she was doing. Now, has she got
(19:03):
emotional problems, mental health issues? Of course she does, but
not to the point that she didn't know that was wrong.
And she certainly showed it again when she so supposedly
climbs out of the window, puts a couple of superficial
cuts on herself. As a nurse, she knows where the
(19:23):
arteries are. and drops down and tries to act like
she tried to commit suicide. All just a bogus bunch
of bull.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
Well, it goes again to the venue. It goes to
the jurisdiction. It goes to the state where a trial
is being held. I could tell you right now, I
would expect a very different outcome in your state of
Texas or my free state of Florida. That's why people...
go judge shopping. That's why they go venue shopping. That's
(19:54):
why I worry about judicial activism so much. I mean,
it should be about the law. And in this case,
the burden of proof was on the prosecution. Did they
show intent? I think sending the husband out and calling
the pharmacy ahead of time if they have children's Miralax,
and then calling him in the process of killing the
kids shows that she was kind of in her right
(20:16):
mind and had a degree of consciousness and awareness of
what she was doing.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
But that's my thought.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
The worst thing that was said in this whole trial,
this whole process, came from her attorney.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
And one is he.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
Attacked my friend Nancy Grace, a victim at 19 of...
her fiance being murdered. It changed her entire life in
ways you can't imagine. And if you want to watch
the podcast, it's on my podcast. She tells the whole,
whole painful story. But the worst thing is when that
(20:52):
defense attorney, Mr. Reddington, my buddy who attacked me, actually said, she's.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
Never done a thing wrong in her whole life. She's
a good mother.
Speaker 4 (21:02):
This young lady.
Speaker 9 (21:05):
Did nothing wrong in her life.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
Nothing in her whole life.
Speaker 4 (21:08):
She was a nurse.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
Nurse.
Speaker 7 (21:10):
A daughter.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
A wife. A wife.
Speaker 9 (21:14):
And a darn good mother.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
Darn good mother. Darn good mother, by definition, doesn't kill
her children. And I'll add one other thing.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
Then when he said, and the prosecution over there, they
ripped the soul out of this woman.
Speaker 9 (21:28):
I told you in the opening statement that this is
a prosecution that has ripped the soul out of this girl.
Speaker 4 (21:35):
This is what they had. This is their family. How
does this turn into this? How?
Speaker 9 (21:53):
Because of the damn medicine and the lousy medical care
that she got. You can troop as many paid experts
as you want to come in here and tell the jury, oh, well,
she didn't say that she heard voices inside her head.
She said she heard voices from outside her head. She
said she was making chicken McNuggets. There was a bowl
(22:15):
on the sofa. She wasn't making chicken McNuggets.
Speaker 4 (22:18):
She said something.
Speaker 9 (22:19):
As I think and I muse and I try real
hard to tell you what my opinion is, that this
woman was acting in her right mind.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
What about the soul of the three kids?
Speaker 7 (22:32):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
Don't like that. I don't particularly like this guy. Jerry,
appreciate you, man. God bless you.
Speaker 4 (22:38):
All right.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
Quick break. Right back to our busy phones. Our toll
free telephone number is 800-941-SHAWN. If you want to be
a part of the program as we continue.
Speaker 4 (22:53):
Question.
Speaker 7 (22:54):
How many liberals does it take to make a common
sense statement?
Speaker 3 (23:01):
Yep, you're right.
Speaker 4 (23:02):
Fake news, not even possible. You're locked in on The
Hannity Show.
Speaker 2 (23:18):
The Hannity Show.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Back to our busy phones, toll-free 800-941-SHAWN if you want
to join us.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
We'll stay in Texas. We have Ricardo on the line.
What's up, Ricardo?
Speaker 7 (23:45):
Hopefully I sound better now.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
What's going on, Ricardo? Glad you called, sir.
Speaker 7 (23:51):
Thank you very, very much. I first have to start
and say I hope I don't turn into a bumbling
idiot because you're one of my heroes.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
You're talking to a friend.
Speaker 1 (24:01):
I want everyone to know that we are all friends
on this program. So let not your heart be troubled.
Our audience is understanding and wants to hear what you
have to say.
Speaker 7 (24:11):
Yeah, but I have to say something real quick to you.
I never met any of my grandparents. They all died
in the Holocaust. I hate the term Holocaust because it
makes it sound inevitable. And when I hear you speak
of your support of Israel and the Jewish people, I
(24:32):
truly believe that you have a place reserved in heaven
for the righteous of all times. You really, really do
to me.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
You know, I don't think I should get special props,
and this is not false humility, for standing up for
simply what is right.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
It's not complicated for me.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
You know, without getting into religious doctrine, as a Christian,
you know, our Savior was Jewish. The apostles that he chose,
his chosen apostles were Jewish. His cousin, John the Baptist,
was Jewish. And he came to save all of humanity
from our sins.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
And whether you.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
Believe he's the Mashiach, the Messiah, I believe that Jesus
is the bridge.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
I am the way, the truth, and the life.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
And that he came to reconcile and sacrifice his life,
sacrifice his suffer, die, and was buried for our sins.
And that man was Jewish. I believe in Judeo-Christian ethics,
the very ones that built this country.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
But I don't want to digress. What's on your mind today?
Speaker 7 (25:45):
Anyway, I have been a psychiatrist for 50 years, and
I've testified usually in favor of the prosecution because I
am appalled when people use psychiatric excuses to escape the
consequences of their behavior. Having said that, after 50 years
(26:12):
of doing this, you do realize sometimes that these people's
brains get hijacked by mental illness. And they truly, truly
believe while they are mentally ill that they are doing
the right thing. And they can be scheming And they
can be lying. They can be devious. But what is
(26:35):
happening to them is that the brain is hijacked for
a period of time due to chemical changes, whatever happens
in their brain. But their brain is hijacked. And then,
you know, many, many years ago, we have to decide,
is this person evil or is this person crazy? And
I guess this is the debate in this case. that
(27:00):
you have to sometimes understand that while they were engaged
in these actions, they are insane. They're not in control
of their reasoning. I have been involved in cases. Another
case that I had was very dramatic to me because
it was when I was in South Texas. I had
(27:22):
this little schizophrenic guy who was convinced because of the
voices in his head and his delusions that his mother
was not really his mother, but it was an alien
that had acquired the body of his mother, and he
almost beat his elderly mother to death, and he believed
(27:46):
he was doing the right thing.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
Well, I just don't have enough time to go through
what sounds like a fascinating life and history you have,
but I want to get this question asked. Do you
believe that this woman taking the steps to send her
husband out and calling him to make sure he still
stayed out, and the things that she looked up on
the internet, which we've gone over exhaustively, do you think
(28:11):
that she knew what she was doing?
Speaker 7 (28:15):
Well, what happens is I think... She believed she was
doing the right thing. This is what's crazy about it.
This is what.
Speaker 2 (28:24):
So what would your verdict be? Because I have to run.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
Huh?
Speaker 2 (28:28):
What would your verdict be? Because I have to run.
Speaker 7 (28:31):
Okay, I would... She is insane at the time of
the alleged offense. And she would have to be permanently
under the care of the courts.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
So I got to run.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
I appreciate your call and all the good work you've
done in your life. It sounds like you've led a
very fascinating life. And these, you know, I don't think
every case is cut and dry. And I do believe
in mental illness and I do believe people lose their mind.
But I think by definition, it kills someone. You have
to be a little crazy. So there's that factor, too.
(29:09):
Eight hundred nine for one, Sean, if you want to
be a part of the program.
All right, we have breaking news right at this moment.
It appears that the jurors have been excused for the
day in the Lindsay Clancy trial. Earlier today, they did
tell the judge for the second time that they are
unable to come to a unanimous decision. You know, to
(00:20):
their credit, they've gone back now for a second time
and spent an enormous amount of time trying to take
the judge's instructions seriously when they when they came out
earlier today and said they were unable to come to
a unanimous decision the judge kind of amplified wait what
what should happen when jurors cannot agree we're going to
(00:43):
be joined by greg jarrett getting reaction all this in
a second But let me play what went down earlier today.
They now have been sent home after another deadlock. They're
dismissed for the day after being instructed by the judge
to go back for a second time.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Here's how that played out earlier today.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
For the record, 12 deliberating jurors and six alternates in
the Manor Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
All other parties are present.
Speaker 4 (01:07):
All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. All right.
Speaker 5 (01:11):
Members of the jury, I've got you a question, or
probably more of a statement than a question, saying after
much deliberation, we are still unable to come to a
unanimous decision.
Speaker 4 (01:23):
Now, based on that, I'm going to give you another instruction,
all right? And it's this.
Speaker 5 (01:31):
Our Constitution and laws provide that in a criminal case,
the principal way for deciding questions of fact is by
the verdict of a jury. In most cases, perhaps strictly
speaking in all cases, absolute certainty cannot be attained, nor
is it expected. The verdict to which a juror agrees
(01:52):
must be their own, the result of their own convictions,
and not a mere acquiescence in the conclusions of their
fellow jurors. Yet, in order to bring 12 minds to
a unanimous result, you must examine the questions submitted to
you with candor and with proper regard and deference and
respect to the opinions of each other. You should consider
(02:16):
that it is desirable that the case be decided and
that you have been selected in the same manner and
from the same source from which any future jury would be.
Speaker 4 (02:27):
There is no.
Speaker 5 (02:28):
Reason to suppose that the case will ever be submitted
to 12 persons more intelligent, more impartial, or more competent
to decide it, or that more or.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
Clearer evidence will be produced.
Speaker 5 (02:42):
And with this in mind, it's your duty to decide
the case if you can do it conscientiously. In order
to make a decision more attainable, the law imposes the
burden of proof on one party or the other in
all cases. In the present case, a criminal case, the
burden of proof is on the Commonwealth to establish every
(03:04):
element of the crime charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Speaker 4 (03:08):
If you are left in doubt of any element.
Speaker 5 (03:10):
Of the crime, the defendant is entitled to the benefit
of the doubt and must be acquitted.
Speaker 4 (03:17):
However, in conferring together, you.
Speaker 5 (03:20):
Ought to pay proper respect to each other's opinions and
listen with an open mind to each other's arguments. Thus,
where there is disagreement, jurors for acquittal should consider whether
a doubt in their own minds is a reasonable one
if it makes no impression on the mind's of others
(03:41):
who are equally honest, equally intelligent, and who have heard
the same evidence with the same attention, with an equal
desire to arrive at the truth, and who have taken.
Speaker 4 (03:50):
The same oath as jurors.
Speaker 5 (03:53):
On the other hand, Jurors for conviction ought seriously to
ask themselves whether they may not reasonably doubt the correctness
of a judgment that is not concurred in by other
members of the jury and whether they should distrust the
weight or adequacy of the evidence that fails to convince
the minds of fellow jurors. With that, I now ask
(04:16):
you to return to your deliberations with these thoughts in mind.
Speaker 4 (04:20):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
All right. That was earlier today.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
Now the jury has been sent home and will reconvene
tomorrow at 9 a.m. for day six of deliberation. Joining
us now, Fox News contributor, Fox News legal analyst, number
one New York Times bestselling author, our friend Greg Jarrett
is with us. Now, my understanding is that there's only
one more time that the jury can come back and
(04:46):
say they can't reach a unanimous verdict, that the judge
can mandate them to go back and deliberate. So it
seems that they're trying. I mean, they've spent an inordinate
amount of time since the first time they went to
the judge doing more deliberations. Then they came back today
and they said, we're not getting there. And then the
judge gave them the instructions we just played. Now they've
(05:09):
continued that for hours and now they have been dismissed
for the rest of the day.
Speaker 6 (05:13):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
my interpretation is simply that they're not going to reach
a verdict the probably there are people in that jury
room that are dug in uh... can kick is a
possible to overcome that disagreement of course there is but
in my mind great jared i look at murder one
is off the table man uh... probably murder two is
off the table maybe outside shot manslaughter and then as
(05:37):
a matter where it goes from there yeah i.
Speaker 6 (05:39):
Think your assessment is uh... pretty accurate uh... The clip
you played is what's nicknamed the dynamite charge. They call
it something different in Massachusetts, but that's what it is.
And Sullivan was reading an approved instruction from the higher
courts in Massachusetts that have litigated dynamite charges and have said,
(06:02):
here's what you can say. And so the judge strictly
read it. What can be said? Don't abandon your convictions,
but go back in there and seriously consider opposing views
and then reassess your own position. And that's, you know,
that's a common sense instruction. A deadlock jury does not
(06:24):
necessarily mean that a verdict cannot be reached because, you know, Sean,
we don't know what the numbers are in the jury room.
Speaker 4 (06:31):
Is it 6-6?
Speaker 6 (06:31):
Is it 9-3?
Speaker 7 (06:31):
Is it 11-1?
Speaker 6 (06:32):
And in whose favor? If there's a single holdout, then yeah,
there's a greater chance of unanimity one way or the other.
We also don't really know the dynamics in that jury room.
Momentum can change over time. Just how adamant or firm
(06:53):
are each side or some jurors persuadable? Might a compromise
resolve the impasse and what would the compromise be? the
lesser included second-degree murder, or the involuntary manslaughter, Sean, as
you suggest. Now, having said that, you know, this case
is somewhat unique because it's the kind of defense which
(07:17):
is rare, and it's centered on something controversial, a postpartum illness.
And that tends to evoke strong passions on either side.
There seems to be little middle ground. You either believe
it or you don't. And that may be where the
jury is. They're split, but they're vehement and uncompromising in
(07:39):
their opinions. So, in fact, we could be headed for
a mistrial.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
I'd say the odds lean heavily in favor of that.
We were both on the same page, and obviously you
hold more weight. on this topic because it's your background,
your area of expertise, not only were you a practicing lawyer, but,
you know, all the years you have been involved in
high profile cases. This is not your first rodeo. You
(08:08):
have covered these cases comprehensively, you know, going back to
the O.J. Simpson case, for crying out loud.
Speaker 4 (08:14):
So.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
You know, my interpretation of this is they are probably
hopelessly deadlocked, but they're trying.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
And I give them credit for trying.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
But then I get into this whole other issue, which
only I think I'll bring up, which is, you know,
the jury pool in Massachusetts is not exactly lean conservative.
And that might mean they are more susceptible to some
of the defense's arguments. I do believe, as you do.
that the burden of proof that was rightly, and the
(08:43):
judge pointed it out, on the Commonwealth, that that level,
that intent was proven. But I can understand people, you know,
trying their best, and yet they can't get there. They
listen to the defense. They listen to the arguments of
the defense and some of their expert witnesses. So it's
hard to predict, but I think we're probably looking at
(09:04):
a hung jury. That's my best guess.
Speaker 4 (09:06):
Agree? Agree.
Speaker 6 (09:07):
Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. And part of the problem is,
and you allude to this, it's obviously a complicated case,
both factually and legally. Because to convict Clancy of first-degree murder,
the jury has to be unanimous in its decision beyond
any reasonable doubt that Clancy was, two things. Number one,
(09:32):
sane under the legal definition. and number two, that she
was capable of forming criminal intent to take the lives
of her three children and did so either with premeditation
or extreme atrocity or cruelty. That's how the statute in
Massachusetts reads. Given the conflicting evidence and the contradictory expert
(09:56):
testimony presented at trial, it's not easy to to achieve
unanimity on both the facts and the law. In fact,
it's quite hard, because on the one hand, the defense
did offer credible evidence of severe mental illness brought about
by postpartum depression, then exacerbated by quote-unquote bad doctors over
(10:21):
medication that arguably made her condition worse. Did she really
suffer a singular psychotic event that drove her to kill?
On the other hand, the prosecution presented persuasive psychiatric testimony
that called into doubt the claimed psychosis. She had two
experts in rebuttal who called it nonsense, especially in light
(10:45):
of The evidence that she used her computer, for example,
to research the amount of time she needed to distract
her husband's whereabouts, to carry out the killings in his absence. Now,
that takes a certain amount of willfulness and deliberation, and
that supports the murder charge. And in fact, in closing arguments,
(11:07):
the lead prosecutor did an impressive job of laying out
the critical timelines involved. So this is not an easy
case by any stretch.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
What did you think of the defense attorney specifically attacking
me by name and the men on my show, which
includes you, and then attacking Nancy Grace, a victim, a
crime victim herself, 19, engaged, fiance, brutally murdered. I mean,
nearly destroyed her whole life and turned her into a
(11:41):
victim's advocate and then later a prosecutor.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
You know, the queen of mean. And I've had many
women commenting on this case. You were on with some
of them.
Speaker 4 (11:51):
Yes.
Speaker 6 (11:52):
You know, I saw Reddington's remarks, Hannity and his men.
I guess you're one.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
Of my men. We've got a posse going on here.
I don't know.
Speaker 6 (12:03):
What Reddington forgets is that he's a man, and there
are men on the jury, as if they can't be
fair and impartial and objective. I stand by the comments
I made last Friday night on your program.
Speaker 5 (12:21):
Uh.
Speaker 6 (12:21):
that braddington apparently didn't like he put forth i said
it at the time a compelling case for insanity but
then he stumbled during a wandering closing argument that's my
opinion at least uh... you know and i put.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
She never is the worst thing he said is the
prosecution is destroying the soul of this woman right and
then he also said she never did a thing wrong
in her in her life she's such a good mother
I'm like, really? What about the souls of the kids,
and what good mother kills their kid, even if it
was under duress?
Speaker 6 (13:00):
Yeah, when you say something patently absurd and arguably offensive,
and I think those comments were, you run the risk
of alienating jurors, and you squander your most valuable asset,
which is credibility.
Speaker 7 (13:19):
It was uh.
Speaker 6 (13:19):
lashed out at you in your program and i guess
myself and nancy grace because he didn't like the criticism
that tells me he's not only thin-skinned but the critique
that uh... was leveled at him may have resonated with
him as accurate ended there's an old saying uh... problem
(13:40):
is the best closing argument i ever gave was gave
was in the car ride home after the trial.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
You know, there's a great saying attributed to Ben Franklin,
the sting in any rebuke is the truth. Maybe it
was the truth that bugged him. Greg, we really appreciate
your time. Thanks for being with us. We'll take calls,
by the way, when we get back. Later on, Big
and Rich will be on the program. 800-941-SHAWN if you
want to be a part of the program. All right,
let's get on our busy telephones. Kenny is in North Carolina. Kenny, hi,
(14:12):
how are you? Glad you called. Are you going to
vote for the guy that let out the person that
was responsible for the murder of a number of people, apparently?
Speaker 8 (14:22):
I was going to talk about the Lindsay Clancy thing. Like,
people are talking about how there's only three men on
the jury, and it's up to them to kind of
sway it. It really wasn't. I mean, as a Gen Z,
I kind of seen this as a downstream effect of
the culture war. Basically, you go anywhere with, you know,
modern women and stuff, and this will happen. I went
(14:44):
to a party yesterday and kind of like just started
talking about it. And the whole room went one way
and it's not the way that you or I would
want it to. And I watched how men who I
respected and knew kind of just stood by and like
went quiet. And so I think that we're going to
be seeing a lot more stuff like this in the future. Sorry.
(15:07):
And basically that we're basically seeing these people not acting
on justice and principles, but after their beliefs or how
they feel it happened. You know, this is becoming a
larger issue with court in America.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
Kenny, I did this whole thing yesterday where we had
both sides of this debate on, Nancy Grace and Tiffany Smiley.
And I did it because of the very reason that
you're bringing up here, which is we're going to see
a lot more of this. And I think the fact
that lawyers around the country are are watching this unfold
(15:43):
and watching the public reaction to this is only fueling
their fire for, quote, their clients. And I think you'll
see a lot more of the insanity defense. However, let
me tell you another thing. And I've mentioned this many,
many times and I mentioned it earlier today. Jurisdictions matter
is a reason that people go judge shopping. Now, the
(16:06):
jurisdiction in Massachusetts is what it is, and I'm not
disparaging the jury in any way. I'll just believe that
they gave it their all. They took their responsibility seriously.
But when you have in Massachusetts not a single elected
Republican in Washington and a governor that just signed a
(16:28):
bill that allows abortion up to the moment of birth,
the jury pool is not exactly conservative or as conservative.
and your state of North Carolina, my free state of Florida.
So we'll see what happens. But I do appreciate your call, Kenny.
I think you are right. Jerry is in Texas. God
bless Texas. Jerry, how are you? You're not voting for
(16:48):
six-gender Tallarico. God is non-binary. Trans biological men should have
access to abortion, are you?
Speaker 3 (16:55):
You don't have to worry about that, Sean. Greetings from
the great state of Texas, by the way. I'm still
mad at you for choosing Florida over Texas, by the way, but...
But we'll let bygones be bygones.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
Well, wait a minute.
Speaker 1 (17:08):
I am an honorary Texan. Rick Perry made me one,
so I'm very grateful.
Speaker 3 (17:13):
We accept you for that. We appreciate that. On this crazy,
clancy case, I just want to congratulate you and thank
you for finally getting people to focus on what really
matters in this whole case. It's not about evidence. It's
not about facts. This is the focus is on this
(17:36):
is a Massachusetts court. These are Massachusetts jurors, a super blue,
ultra liberal state with just they've just shown in the
past their officials and everyone, their governor. You just mentioned
the ban on abortion right up to birth or allowing
(17:57):
abortion right up to birth. They don't have a great
interest in justice or law and order or accountability or
concern for life. I'm even now hearing people talking about, well,
this was a mercy killing. My God, what are you
talking about? A mercy killing. Look at these white women
(18:20):
outside the courtroom. I mean, focused entirely on victimization, empathy,
compassion for Clancy. They they can't digest the facts or
the evidence. And so they just go to all of
this emotional garbage. They lack total common sense about this.
(18:41):
And she clearly, I thought the prosecution did a great
job in the final argument, just blowing up the whole
idea that she didn't have any control. She manipulated the
crap out of that That family manipulated her husband. I mean,
she knew what she was doing. Now, has she got
(19:03):
emotional problems, mental health issues? Of course she does, but
not to the point that she didn't know that was wrong.
And she certainly showed it again when she so supposedly
climbs out of the window, puts a couple of superficial
cuts on herself. As a nurse, she knows where the
(19:23):
arteries are. and drops down and tries to act like
she tried to commit suicide. All just a bogus bunch
of bull.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
Well, it goes again to the venue. It goes to
the jurisdiction. It goes to the state where a trial
is being held. I could tell you right now, I
would expect a very different outcome in your state of
Texas or my free state of Florida. That's why people...
go judge shopping. That's why they go venue shopping. That's
(19:54):
why I worry about judicial activism so much. I mean,
it should be about the law. And in this case,
the burden of proof was on the prosecution. Did they
show intent? I think sending the husband out and calling
the pharmacy ahead of time if they have children's Miralax,
and then calling him in the process of killing the
kids shows that she was kind of in her right
(20:16):
mind and had a degree of consciousness and awareness of
what she was doing.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
But that's my thought.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
The worst thing that was said in this whole trial,
this whole process, came from her attorney.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
And one is he.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
Attacked my friend Nancy Grace, a victim at 19 of...
her fiance being murdered. It changed her entire life in
ways you can't imagine. And if you want to watch
the podcast, it's on my podcast. She tells the whole,
whole painful story. But the worst thing is when that
(20:52):
defense attorney, Mr. Reddington, my buddy who attacked me, actually said, she's.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
Never done a thing wrong in her whole life. She's
a good mother.
Speaker 4 (21:02):
This young lady.
Speaker 9 (21:05):
Did nothing wrong in her life.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
Nothing in her whole life.
Speaker 4 (21:08):
She was a nurse.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
Nurse.
Speaker 7 (21:10):
A daughter.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
A wife. A wife.
Speaker 9 (21:14):
And a darn good mother.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
Darn good mother. Darn good mother, by definition, doesn't kill
her children. And I'll add one other thing.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
Then when he said, and the prosecution over there, they
ripped the soul out of this woman.
Speaker 9 (21:28):
I told you in the opening statement that this is
a prosecution that has ripped the soul out of this girl.
Speaker 4 (21:35):
This is what they had. This is their family. How
does this turn into this? How?
Speaker 9 (21:53):
Because of the damn medicine and the lousy medical care
that she got. You can troop as many paid experts
as you want to come in here and tell the jury, oh, well,
she didn't say that she heard voices inside her head.
She said she heard voices from outside her head. She
said she was making chicken McNuggets. There was a bowl
(22:15):
on the sofa. She wasn't making chicken McNuggets.
Speaker 4 (22:18):
She said something.
Speaker 9 (22:19):
As I think and I muse and I try real
hard to tell you what my opinion is, that this
woman was acting in her right mind.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
What about the soul of the three kids?
Speaker 7 (22:32):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
Don't like that. I don't particularly like this guy. Jerry,
appreciate you, man. God bless you.
Speaker 4 (22:38):
All right.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
Quick break. Right back to our busy phones. Our toll
free telephone number is 800-941-SHAWN. If you want to be
a part of the program as we continue.
Speaker 4 (22:53):
Question.
Speaker 7 (22:54):
How many liberals does it take to make a common
sense statement?
Speaker 3 (23:01):
Yep, you're right.
Speaker 4 (23:02):
Fake news, not even possible. You're locked in on The
Hannity Show.
Speaker 2 (23:18):
The Hannity Show.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Back to our busy phones, toll-free 800-941-SHAWN if you want
to join us.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
We'll stay in Texas. We have Ricardo on the line.
What's up, Ricardo?
Speaker 7 (23:45):
Hopefully I sound better now.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
What's going on, Ricardo? Glad you called, sir.
Speaker 7 (23:51):
Thank you very, very much. I first have to start
and say I hope I don't turn into a bumbling
idiot because you're one of my heroes.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
You're talking to a friend.
Speaker 1 (24:01):
I want everyone to know that we are all friends
on this program. So let not your heart be troubled.
Our audience is understanding and wants to hear what you
have to say.
Speaker 7 (24:11):
Yeah, but I have to say something real quick to you.
I never met any of my grandparents. They all died
in the Holocaust. I hate the term Holocaust because it
makes it sound inevitable. And when I hear you speak
of your support of Israel and the Jewish people, I
(24:32):
truly believe that you have a place reserved in heaven
for the righteous of all times. You really, really do
to me.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
You know, I don't think I should get special props,
and this is not false humility, for standing up for
simply what is right.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
It's not complicated for me.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
You know, without getting into religious doctrine, as a Christian,
you know, our Savior was Jewish. The apostles that he chose,
his chosen apostles were Jewish. His cousin, John the Baptist,
was Jewish. And he came to save all of humanity
from our sins.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
And whether you.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
Believe he's the Mashiach, the Messiah, I believe that Jesus
is the bridge.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
I am the way, the truth, and the life.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
And that he came to reconcile and sacrifice his life,
sacrifice his suffer, die, and was buried for our sins.
And that man was Jewish. I believe in Judeo-Christian ethics,
the very ones that built this country.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
But I don't want to digress. What's on your mind today?
Speaker 7 (25:45):
Anyway, I have been a psychiatrist for 50 years, and
I've testified usually in favor of the prosecution because I
am appalled when people use psychiatric excuses to escape the
consequences of their behavior. Having said that, after 50 years
(26:12):
of doing this, you do realize sometimes that these people's
brains get hijacked by mental illness. And they truly, truly
believe while they are mentally ill that they are doing
the right thing. And they can be scheming And they
can be lying. They can be devious. But what is
(26:35):
happening to them is that the brain is hijacked for
a period of time due to chemical changes, whatever happens
in their brain. But their brain is hijacked. And then,
you know, many, many years ago, we have to decide,
is this person evil or is this person crazy? And
I guess this is the debate in this case. that
(27:00):
you have to sometimes understand that while they were engaged
in these actions, they are insane. They're not in control
of their reasoning. I have been involved in cases. Another
case that I had was very dramatic to me because
it was when I was in South Texas. I had
(27:22):
this little schizophrenic guy who was convinced because of the
voices in his head and his delusions that his mother
was not really his mother, but it was an alien
that had acquired the body of his mother, and he
almost beat his elderly mother to death, and he believed
(27:46):
he was doing the right thing.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
Well, I just don't have enough time to go through
what sounds like a fascinating life and history you have,
but I want to get this question asked. Do you
believe that this woman taking the steps to send her
husband out and calling him to make sure he still
stayed out, and the things that she looked up on
the internet, which we've gone over exhaustively, do you think
(28:11):
that she knew what she was doing?
Speaker 7 (28:15):
Well, what happens is I think... She believed she was
doing the right thing. This is what's crazy about it.
This is what.
Speaker 2 (28:24):
So what would your verdict be? Because I have to run.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
Huh?
Speaker 2 (28:28):
What would your verdict be? Because I have to run.
Speaker 7 (28:31):
Okay, I would... She is insane at the time of
the alleged offense. And she would have to be permanently
under the care of the courts.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
So I got to run.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
I appreciate your call and all the good work you've
done in your life. It sounds like you've led a
very fascinating life. And these, you know, I don't think
every case is cut and dry. And I do believe
in mental illness and I do believe people lose their mind.
But I think by definition, it kills someone. You have
to be a little crazy. So there's that factor, too.
(29:09):
Eight hundred nine for one, Sean, if you want to
be a part of the program.
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular 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 Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.