September 4, 2026 • 36 mins
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 (00:05):
Yeah, I was really looking forward to doing my worst
show of the year today. Had it all planned out.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
All right, it's a Friday before Labor Day weekend. It's
a beautiful day out. Nobody's going to care, right? I mean,
anybody who happens to be listening, thank God for you, but...
you're not going to care. Nobody's going to care about
anything meaningful this afternoon. And then the Lindsay Clancy trial
blew all that up because all of a sudden, you know,
we had this really important development and it happens to
(00:41):
be not only very important news, it happens to be
in my wheelhouse. It happens to be legal stuff. So yeah,
I think a lot of people are very dialed in
this afternoon in particular to that. So I've been all
over it and anxious to jump in and really looking
forward to doing something that over the years I've I
felt very privileged to do, which is to jump into
(01:02):
these big cases and point something out that almost everybody
else has missed and kind of explains everything. And I've
got one of those for you in the Clancy case
as well.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
So let's get to that right out of the gate.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
I cannot start without talking about not only how happy
I am, but a little I told you so when
it comes to the CU buffs. And, you know, just remember,
I've been talking about how, hey, just Feels like it's
going to be a really good year. Didn't claim any
inside info because I don't have any. I haven't gone
to a practice or anything else. Just after so many
years of following the buffs, just had that feeling it
(01:36):
was going to be a really good year. And even
if they had not blocked that kick at the end
of the game and beat Georgia Tech so dramatically, I
would have felt really encouraged by the progress we saw
last night. So we're not a sports show, so I
won't do the whole X and O, but just bigger
pictures say I think it confirms what I've been saying
all week about Prime. That is a quality individual. He
(01:57):
could have took off when the going got hard. He
had serious health problems he could have blamed, but he's
a winner. And winners don't quit. He hung in there and,
you know, whatever they did out on the recruiting trail
and NIL and all that, they obviously brought in a
lot of, not only talent, because you know how it is.
How many of these five stars bust in college, right?
(02:19):
And it doesn't reveal any underlying character flaw or anything else.
It's just the way life works. They become a five
star and then they start to get glorified. And then
all of a sudden you lose your edge. And so,
so many of these five stars never pan out. But
what the Buffs have right now clearly is a bunch
of dogs. A bunch of guys who are willing to
dig in and fight. And it's a beautiful thing to see.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
So, what a great start to the season.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
I'm very, very optimistic about the CSU Rams also under
Jim Mora. So, That game Saturday should be a great one.
So what a great way to head into this Labor
Day weekend. But the Lindsey Clancy case, what I'm going
to do in this segment is if you haven't been
following the case closely, and my guess is you have not,
like me, like most of us, then I want to
(03:05):
give you a quick background. But then I also want
to point out the one thing that's been missing from
most legal analysis out there that I think clearly explains
what just happened here. And so the quick background on
the case is, as you may have heard by now,
Lindsay Clancy was a labor and delivery nurse at Mass General.
And she and her husband, Patrick, they're living in Duxbury, Mass.
(03:28):
And they've got these three kids. Cora is five. Dawson
is three. Callan is eight months. And she then ends
up strangling the three children on January 24 of 2023
after her husband died. left the house to pick up
takeout food and medication. So while he's gone, and this
(03:52):
was central to the prosecution case, while he's gone, the
three are strangled and killed. You know, Lindsey Clancy then
jumps from a second-story window in an apparent suicide attempt
and was paralyzed during that jump, paralyzed from the waist down. Now,
it was, and there was a lot of evidence on this,
(04:14):
After the youngest, Kellen's birth, Clancy experienced this increasingly serious
psychiatric problems. I don't think anybody, the prosecution wasn't questioning
that she had some psychiatric problems. The big question was, hey,
did she know what she was doing was wrong? And
did she have the ability to control herself? I mean,
(04:36):
there's a lot of legal mumbo jumbo that surrounds that,
but that's what it comes down to. And so there
were all sorts of evidence about, yeah, there was no doubt. And,
you know, probably everybody has known somebody suffering from some
really serious postpartum depression, other mental issues that can sometimes
follow the birth of a child. And so lots of
(04:58):
evidence of anxiety, insomnia, depression, paranoia, suicidal thoughts, intrusive thoughts
about harming the kids. So now here is one key fact.
She had been put in a psychiatric hospital. She wanted
to go there and had been discharged about 19 days
before the killings. And so defense had defended on that
(05:18):
basis and claiming that she had not been adequately treated
for those problems and, in fact, that some of the treatment,
including pharmaceutical, had made things worse. But that's what this
whole trial boiled down to is not did she have
mental illness.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Clearly she did.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
But did she still know that what she was doing
was wrong? And did she have the ability to control it?
So that's what the case came down to. And as
you know, by now, obviously, you know, we had this
very strange scenario that played out in public thanks to,
I think, some really inappropriate behavior by the defense lawyer
in one respect. But where we ended up with an
(05:56):
11-1 split that became very public. And then the one, apparently,
from all the reporting so far and what we can
tell from the judge's comments, you know, the one, you know,
unwilling to acquit at this point and apparently holding out
for conviction. That's the best available information right now. Until
(06:17):
these jurors start to talk, some will, I'm sure, and
we start to get some more information, you know, we
really can't be certain of all that.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
But let's assume for the.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Sake of conversation what everybody else is assuming, which can
be dangerous, but that there was the one holding out
for conviction or at least unwilling to acquit and the
other 11 very strongly wanted to acquit.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
How do we ever get to that point? And one
thing that I think.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Has been missing in a lot of the legal analysis is,
wait a second, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. What does
that mean? Now, we know there's been all sorts of
talk about, you know, a note sent out by the
foreperson saying we've got this one juror who won't abide
by the law, who admits that there's doubt, but still
(07:05):
won't acquit. Is the essence of the reporting on this.
But what I haven't seen discussed is, wait a second,
under Massachusetts law, not Colorado law, Massachusetts law, what is
the definition of reasonable doubt? Because put yourself in the
(07:27):
shoes of those jurors. You're sitting there, you know, you
know everything I just mentioned and a hundred times more.
And you're being told that as a matter of law,
it is not the defendant's burden to prove anything. It's
not the defendant's burden to prove that she was out
of her mind, she couldn't figure out right from wrong,
(07:49):
if she could, she couldn't help herself. She doesn't have
to prove any of that. Once you give notice that
this is your defense, that you're not guilty by reason
of your mental condition, Colorado would call it not guilty
by reason of insanity, that it's all on the prosecution.
They've got to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you
(08:11):
knew right from wrong and that you could control yourself.
They got to prove all that beyond a reasonable doubt,
which brings me to.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
My core point.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
How do they define reasonable doubt in Massachusetts? Now, if
I was a real jerk and doing a typical talk
show thing, I would tease the definition of reasonable doubt
in Massachusetts through the break. But I'm not going to
do that because I am a talk show listener. I
listen to lots of talk shows. And if I'm sitting
there in the car and I'm listening to a talk
(08:43):
show and a host does that to me, I'm never
going to listen to that host again. So here is
the definition of reasonable doubt in Massachusetts. And more specifically,
what the prosecution needs to do to prove a charge
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
Listen to this.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
And then you tell me how hard it would be
for the prosecution to do this in this case and
how easy it would be for a juror to conclude
that guilt had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
Here's a definition.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
A charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after
you have compared and considered all of the evidence, you
have in your mind an abiding conviction that to a
moral certainty, remember those words, that the charge is true.
That language, to a moral certainty, is enormous. Now, what
(09:47):
is the definition of to a moral certainty?
Speaker 1 (09:50):
Wait till you hear this.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
To a moral certainty means the highest degree of certainty
possible in matters related relating to human affairs that is
that the toughest standard for a prosecution to meet that
I have ever seen in my life listen to that
again to a moral certainty means the highest degree of
(10:16):
certainty possible in in matters relating to human affairs. Well,
if I'm sitting on that jury, especially if I'm not
a lawyer and I haven't read a bunch of case
law on this, I'm thinking, wait a second, I've got
to be 100% certain. Now, that's not, by the way,
if you're sitting on a Colorado jury, that's not what
the law requires in terms of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
(10:39):
It's not absolute certainty.
Speaker 3 (10:41):
No.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
But under Massachusetts law, you're sitting on that jury and
somebody tells you to a moral certainty? And that means
the highest degree of certainty possible in matters relating to
human affairs makes it, in a case like this, very, very, very,
very difficult, if not virtually impossible, for a prosecutor to
convict if a jury is going to hold the prosecutor
(11:06):
to that standard. And whether that's going to be the case,
I think, often depends on other factors. You're on the
Dan Kaplan Show.
Speaker 4 (11:20):
Kicking from right to left.
Speaker 5 (11:21):
Spotted down right at the 35.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
45 yarder. A 45 yard attempt with three seconds remaining.
Speaker 6 (11:28):
He makes it.
Speaker 7 (11:29):
They win. He misses.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
The Bucs win. Snap put down.
Speaker 5 (11:33):
Kick is up.
Speaker 4 (11:34):
And it got blocked!
Speaker 1 (11:36):
And the game is over. Boo Carter.
Speaker 4 (11:38):
And Colorado wins at Bobby Dodd. Boo Carter blocked a
field goal. How about the start to 2026 and Prime's
return to Atlanta?
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Oh, what a football game this was. Wow.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Wow, that was so amazing last night. So great call
by Mark Johnson and Gary Burnett.
Speaker 6 (12:00):
303-713-8255-DAN.
Speaker 4 (12:04):
5-7-7-3-9.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Great things ahead, as I've been predicting, for the Buffs
and the CSU Rams under Jim Moore.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
Going to be a great season of football. And then
Air Force.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
You know, Air Force is always going to do the
best they can. The problem right now is with all
the service academies in NIL. Yeah, it's just like the
Ivies in NIL. It just makes it very, very, very,
very hard to compete. But, you know, Air Force is always...
going to do the best humanly possible. Hey, we're talking,
of course, about the Lindsay Clancy case today. If you
(12:34):
just joined us, a headline of my analysis out of
the gate was, wait a second, you don't hear much
about this, but Massachusetts law puts an almost impossible burden
on the prosecutor in a case like this. And so
it's very hard to fault any juror for finding reasonable
doubt when the definition of proof beyond a reasonable doubt
(12:55):
in Massachusetts is so much more demanding than than in
most other places because you have to be convinced to
a moral certainty. And then the definition of moral certainty
means the highest degree of certainty possible in matters relating
to human affairs.
Speaker 6 (13:13):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
Very, very, very tough standard. Much tougher than the typical
proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard. And we'll get into
those distinctions as we go into calls and texts.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
303-713-8255, D-A-N-5-7-7-3-9.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
As part of the setup to this conversation today, I
want to bring you some of the most current sound
from this afternoon. Thanks so much to Shannon Scott behind
the glass for being willing to pull all of this because,
you know, Shannon's been up for what, like 48 hours now.
He went to Georgia to produce that CU Buff game,
flew back with the team afterward and came straight into work.
(13:51):
So that is pretty manly stuff right there. So Let
me let me introduce this element. You have a CNN
panelist essentially saying that if Lindsay Clancy had been black,
she would have been convicted.
Speaker 7 (14:06):
Oh, I think it's a good opportunity to see our
justice system at work. flaws and all. But I think
we can't ignore the nuance of, you know, race, not
just gender, but race. We can't ignore the nuance of,
you know, just the optics of why does this trial?
(14:26):
draw so much attention when there are other things we
could be focusing on. And I just, you know, that
is not to fault anyone for focusing on this. But
at the end of the day, when you talk about
who gets to raise a million dollars when they're accused
of killing three children, We just can't ignore some of
(14:48):
those optics and dynamics. And I think those rightly should
be part of the conversations we're having now. And that
goes even beyond just this particular allegation and this particular trial.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
You know what I don't get is why she just
doesn't come out and say what she's clearly saying. Just
come out and say, hey, I think she would have
been convicted if she was black. I think that's a
fair conversation point. Do you think she's right about that?
Do you think the national interest would be there if
the mother who undeniably, brutally killed three young children had
(15:22):
been black instead of white? Do you think the national
interest would have been there? This goes back to the
conversation that we had for years about the O.J. Simpson trial.
You know, if Nicole Brown Simpson had been black instead
of white, would the national interest have been there? That
question was often raised.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
You know, and so.
Speaker 2 (15:40):
All of those questions are out there. 303-713-8255, the number D-A-N-5-7-7-3-9.
Here's another question that's out there, and that is, and
I'll play some of this sound for you here. You
had a whole bunch of people, mostly women, outside the
(16:01):
courthouse berating the D.A. for pursuing the charges, protesting in
favor of Lindsay Clancy. Why do you think that was happening?
And I'm not putting this question on anybody outside the
courthouse because I didn't cover that trial, let alone in person,
so I didn't get a chance to meet those people.
But is this a case where, and we've been talking
(16:25):
about this in broader context before, do we get to
the point as a society when you have a large
group of folks, primarily Democrats, I'm not saying you're a
typical Democrat, but primarily Democrats, who get to the point
where they believe there is a right to kill a child.
Because nobody can doubt that a child at nine months term,
(16:49):
full term, about to be born, that when that baby
is killed, no honest person doubts that that's just infanticide.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
That's just the killing of a baby.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
It doesn't matter if the baby's located, you know, a
couple inches inside or outside a mom.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
You're still killing a baby. Everybody knows that.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
And so you got a whole big group of people
who say it's just fine to do that because that's
mother's right to kill the baby. So with some out
there protesting now in favor of the mother, is that
just extending the point that, wait a second, it's a
mother's right to kill a child? And as preposterous as
(17:25):
that sounds, when you stop and think about the mentality,
whether you're talking to Jared Polis or John Hickenlooper or
Michael Bennett, or a Joe Biden, or a Barack Obama,
or any of these Democrats, when you're talking about a
mentality that says, yes, no, it is absolutely 100% right
and legal to kill a baby, because that's what they're
(17:47):
saying when they support full-term abortion, then why would they
draw the line there?
Speaker 6 (17:54):
Right?
Speaker 2 (17:55):
And that's not to minimize anything that would happen after
the birth. It's just to talk about the preposterous illogical,
immoral way that they're minimizing the life before the birth,
a minute before the birth. So that's another question that
I think comes into play here. Have we reached a
(18:15):
point where we've got a big block of folks in
society on the left who just believe a mother has
a right to kill the baby? 303-713-8255, DAN-57739, probably the
best example of that would be in another setting, California,
where it's hard to find a state more devoted to
(18:38):
the right.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
To kill children.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
But if somebody other than the mother or a doctor
she picks kills that baby, when the mother is just, say,
eight weeks along in her pregnancy, that's capital murder in California.
They can execute you for that. There's no doubt about
what the truth is.
Speaker 4 (19:01):
You know, I'm not going to stand out here and
listen to this.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
DA Cruz, you had 11 jurors that didn't necessarily believe
your case.
Speaker 7 (19:07):
What do you say to those people who felt that
the whole prosecution was insensitive?
Speaker 1 (19:11):
Was what?
Speaker 7 (19:11):
Insensitive.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
Insensitive?
Speaker 6 (19:13):
Insensitive.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
Insensitive is killing three children. That's the DA. And then
he starts getting heckled outside the courthouse. And I'll play
some of that sound as well. It goes back to
the conversation we were having before the break. 303-713-8255, DAN 57739.
I'll get to some of those texts right now. But
if you just joined us, the point I really want
to add to the conversation that I have not seen
(19:38):
in the legal analysis is, wait a second, Massachusetts has
their own definition of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and
it's much tougher than most other places. And in Massachusetts,
and I read it on air, I won't read the
whole thing on air again, it requires proof to a
moral certainty and then defines that as the highest degree
(19:59):
of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs. And
the prosecution had to prove that she knew right from wrong,
and had the ability to control her actions. And listen,
as I sit here from a million miles away, not
having watched a single minute of that trial, I can't
criticize the 11. I can't criticize the one who held out.
(20:23):
All I can say is just as a person sitting here,
knowing that these three young children were brutally murdered, then
at that point, of course, my human instinct is going
to be to want to see a conviction. to be very,
very concerned about that the precedent it might send, set
the message it might send, you know, to have.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
This woman walk.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
But again, didn't watch the trial, and so just can't
reach a bottom line conclusion. Generally, I would say this.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
I'd say, and I.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
Don't know, we're going to have to hear these jurors
talk and learn more, but in terms of an overarching principle,
be the holdout. It's the holdout's who have shaped world
history for the better. You know, it's the holdouts, the
one who stands up against the 11.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
And you think about.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
Almost everything world-changing that has ever happened. It's been the
one standing up against society. Yeah, Jesus Christ himself standing
up against the world order, standing up against society.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
Be the holdout.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
The people who stood up against slavery. The people who
stood up against separate but equal, that hideous doctrine. The
people who stood up against society and said, no, women should.
Speaker 1 (21:48):
Be able to vote.
Speaker 2 (21:50):
And then the people like my mom, who stood up
in the very beginning against abortion. I mean, it's the
holdouts who changed the world. And we'll have to see
in the end, as we get more information about this case,
whether this is another example of that. But just that principle,
I think, is so enormous. Texters, Dan, it's nice that
(22:13):
she has her supporters. Where's the supporters speaking out for
the dead children? You know, I think probably across America
right now, my guess is that a large majority of
Americans are aghast at the idea that this woman would
potentially walk out Now, she'd be going to a mental hospital.
That would be the referral, but she wouldn't spend the
(22:34):
rest of her life there, presumably. So I think most
Americans at this point would be against an acquittal. But
there are certainly very, very vocal supporters. And while this
defense attorney really did some great work in this trial,
I think he crossed the line when he started to
mount this public campaign against this individual juror. And while
(22:57):
he did not name that person, That's just not what
we do in our system, is to isolate a single juror. Now,
you might be back in chambers outside the public eye
and you're talking to the judge and you might be
talking about an individual juror, but to do so publicly.
Speaker 1 (23:17):
I personally think was crossing a line.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
I'm not saying an ethical line that should lead to
some formal process, but I think it's crossing a line
for the defense attorney to have done that. And my
own suspicions, As to why he did it was not
that he thought it was going to change Judge Sullivan's
mind and get some sort of special instruction or the
juror kicked. I think he was trying to influence the
(23:41):
next jury because it was pretty easy to see. We
were talking about it yesterday, right? By yesterday at the latest,
it was pretty easy to see that there was going
to be a hung jury. So I think he was
trying to influence the next jury. And then when we
got this BS today from the defense attorney, arguing publicly
and then to the Massachusetts Supreme Court that this juror
(24:03):
who was holding out is potentially a bigot, biased against
disabled people. To me, that's absolutely hideous. Unless he had
some actual evidence of that, absolutely hideous. And just, I think, far, far,
far out of bounds. But again, if I'm right, and
I'm guessing, never met the guy, I'm guessing about his motive.
(24:24):
if I'm right in that his motive is to intimidate
the next jurors in the next trial or to poison
that well through this kind of intimidation so that the
prosecutor has to just decide not to pursue charges, not
to pursue a second trial. I just think that's hideous.
And it's too bad because he did a lot of legitimate, good,
(24:44):
legitimate work in the trial, but that kind of stuff, yeah,
that is very, very bad for the system. And I
believe far beyond the bounds of what an attorney should
be doing. And listen, I'm a fighter to the max.
I've proven that over 43 years. You can look at
my track record. You can see the results. But you've
(25:05):
still got to follow the law. And you've still got
to show respect for our jury system and for jurors.
And to be publicly singling out an individual.
Speaker 1 (25:14):
Juror, I just think that's very, very, very wrong.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
Back to sound and text. Dan, Democrats don't care about children.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
We all know that.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
I think that's dangerously overbroad, my friend, the texter. We
know that the people who own and operate the Democratic Party,
the people in power, the people who will hold office,
they have made a deliberate decision that they will support
the mass killing of children in order to get and
keep power. It would be a big mistake to think
your typical Democrat feels that way, because I think there
(25:46):
are many, many, many, many people who habitually vote Democrat
who do not feel that way. And we should not
be giving up on them. They should be our focus
to flip them. We can only win Colorado back by
winning enough Democrats back.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
That's the simple reality.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
And if you think that's too hard, then get out
of the game, because that's what we're going to have
to do. Kevin in Boulder, you're on the Dan Kaplan Show. Welcome.
Speaker 6 (26:11):
You know, there's one valid reason that I could have
for not.
Uh publicly or privately to the jurors saying anything you
know what that is what's that my friend he could
be using jury nullification.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
And do you want to expand on that a little
bit and everybody knows jury nullification is when somebody tries
to get a jury to disobey the law um so
what do you see happening.
Speaker 6 (26:43):
Here Well, jury notification is when a juror or jurors
don't agree with the law or the way the law
is being used in that case. So he could have
a reason of his own for not agreeing with the
law or how it's being used in that case.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
Yeah. Kevin, appreciate the call on that.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
And then I do think it is just flat out
unethical for– which means illegal, right? Because lawyers can't legally
do unethical things. It's just flat out unethical to try
to convince a jury to set aside the law. And
(27:22):
if I'm right, and if this defense attorney is trying
to intimidate future jurors in a second trial by claiming
the holdout is some sort of bigot against disabled people, yeah,
that that would go beyond the law and I think
be fundamentally wrong. Charles, you're on the Dan Kaplan Show. Welcome.
Speaker 5 (27:43):
I just had a simple thought. If she had killed
someone else's children, would we be in this debacle? Wow.
Speaker 1 (27:53):
That's a brilliant thought.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
What do you think would be happening right now if
it had been somebody else's children that she killed?
Speaker 5 (28:01):
I feel there wouldn't be as many problems with the
jury and that. Obviously, Just prayers go out to these
jurors who have basically signed up to warp the rest
of their lives.
Speaker 6 (28:15):
How could you ever be a juror.
Speaker 5 (28:18):
In this case and saw seeing those exhibits?
Speaker 2 (28:22):
Right.
Speaker 1 (28:22):
What a great point. And not be affected the rest
of your life.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
And to answer your brilliant question, Charles, I think it's
100 percent certainty. that if she had killed somebody else's
children instead of her own, she would have been convicted
after about two hours of deliberation. Really, really good thinking there, Charles.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
Thank you. 303-713-8255, DAN-57739. Hey, getting flooded with texts and
calls on this. Come back, take those.
Speaker 2 (28:51):
I want to get you some more of the current
sound from the day on this as well. So many
things happening here that we don't normally see.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
And then where do you.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Think this comes from, this crowd of protesters outside supporting
the mother and yelling awful things at the DA? Where
do you think that comes from, and what do you
think that means? You're on The Dan Kaplan Show.
Speaker 1 (29:17):
CNN.
Speaker 3 (29:19):
A mistrial has been ordered by the judge, and the
question is, what about the jurors? I can tell you
from our producer in the courtroom that when the judge said,
I want to tell you all how proud I am
of you, there was one female juror that was nodding
her head no as he was saying all that, another
female juror clenching her hands into fists as she was
(29:43):
sitting on that chair. All of the jurors were extremely tense.
One female juror would not even open her eyes. Her
eyes were gazed down in her lap. Her eyes were
closed as the judge continued to talk to them about
what this final decision was. Another juror just nodded her
(30:05):
head the entire time he was talking, and another female
juror was pursing her lips. We can now tell you
the judge has left the bench. So this proceeding, this trial,
has now concluded. There was no verdict, but it was
a mistrial that was ordered by Judge Sullivan.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
Yeah, and what comes next.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
Please stand by.
Speaker 4 (30:24):
You're looking at live.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
Yeah. Here's what comes next.
Speaker 2 (30:27):
Prosecutions are going to have to decide whether to proceed
to a second trial. And as you probably know, the
way they'll make that determination is to go ahead and
interview the jurors and they'll gather information. And if it
was 11 to 1 against them, that's going to weigh
against a second trial, but it's not going to be
(30:47):
conclusive because that the prosecutor, as you would want to do,
prosecutor is going to want to know, okay, what were
the dynamics in there? Is this a case where We had, say,
one extremely strong leader on the jury who then, you know,
another 10 went along with and then somebody stood up to?
Or is it a case where we really had 11
(31:09):
who just all saw the same thing and just strongly
believed that we could not meet our burden of proof?
That would weigh against a second trial. In that case, then,
you know, prosecutor tried to get some kind of deal,
you know, some kind of deal, but wouldn't have a
whole lot of leverage at that point. You know, defense attorney,
on the other hand, but by all accounts, in the
(31:31):
trial itself, did a very good job. I didn't follow
the case, but by all accounts, did a very good job.
Based on the result, did a very good job.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
What I saw of the defense.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
Attorney in the end, trying to publicly vilify the holdout
juror and say they were a bigot who must be
prejudiced against disabled people, I think that was despicable and
absolutely contrary to the duties of an attorney in that situation.
And so the defense attorney, you know, he obviously needed,
(32:01):
not just wanted, he needed the acquittal here because he
knows that it's never going to get any better for
him than it is now, that the prosecution is going
to learn from this trial. And if the prosecution does
pursue a second trial, that the prosecution is going to
do a much better job.
Speaker 1 (32:19):
And so, yeah. And I love the point. I think
Jonathan Turley made the point.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
He does a good job on Fox as a legal analyst.
I think it was his point that, hey, if you're
one number short of a Powerball ticket, you still don't
have a winning Powerball ticket. So yeah, it had to
be frustrating for the defense attorney to come that close
to an outright acquittal, but that doesn't mean that he won.
And that doesn't give him the right to go out
there and try to publicly vilify this holdout juror. I
(32:47):
am just, I'm really looking forward to hopefully learning who
that juror was and what they were thinking and how
this all broke down without knowing the case. I can't
sit here and know whether the holdout is a hero
or the holdout is someone who was just being irrationally obstinate.
I just can't know from a distance at this point.
(33:10):
What I do, I do in general, just really respect
people who are willing to hold out against Even how
most of society sees something at the moment, because it
wasn't that long ago in this country, most of society
thought that slavery should be legal. Remember, it's not that
long ago in this country. And the people who are
(33:30):
willing to stand up to that, you know, I compare
that to the people willing to stand up to abortion,
you know, today and in the early days of that fight. So, yeah,
the people who hold out, you know, when they have
good cause and a very just and moral cause, They're
the most admirable people in our society and in world history.
I just don't know if this juror is one of
(33:51):
them yet. We just need to learn more.
Speaker 1 (33:54):
303-713-8255, DAN-57739. So many texts.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
I'll try to get through them as quick as I can.
Speaker 1 (34:01):
Dan, Lindsay didn't do it.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
It was all Patrick, her husband. Look into it yourself.
Patrick was never investigated at all. Patrick did it, exclamation point.
I know that this case was streamed, and there were
a lot of people following it every day, kind of
like OJ was followed, but on nowhere near that scale.
And there were a lot of people, you know, this
whole theory got going that the husband did it. I'm
not aware of any evidence that supports that, and it's
(34:24):
certainly not what the defense or prosecution was contending. Dan,
if these weren't her own children, this wouldn't be an issue.
The public would be ready to lynch her. Yeah, Charles
from New Mexico had made that point. I agree a
thousand percent. you know, would have been a conviction in
20 minutes if it had been somebody else's kids.
Speaker 1 (34:44):
So then take that a step further. What does that
tell you? What does that tell you?
Speaker 2 (34:49):
And then we played the CNN sound earlier where the
analyst was saying, hey, essentially saying that if Lindsay Clancy
had been black, she would have been convicted, convicted quickly,
and America wouldn't be paying attention anyway. Do you agree
or disagree with that analyst's Dan, $ 10 million of taxpayer
money will go to trying to decide if a woman
that strangles children is okay. And this goes to a
(35:14):
broader point, right? When we talk about people outside protesting
in her favor, and I'm not saying everybody protesting in
her favor sees it this way, but I think this
reminds us of the reality, the immoral and absurd and
horrifically dangerous reality of where the people who run the
(35:35):
Democratic Party are right now, and that is that they
simply believe a woman has a right to kill a child,
at least a child who's full term, and nobody doubts
that's a child. Nobody doubts that that child's ready to
be born, that just because it's a couple inches inside
the mom instead of outside the mom, that.
Speaker 1 (35:56):
It isn't the same child.
Speaker 2 (35:57):
Everybody knows it is on every level. But the people
who run the Democratic Party and the people in power
in the Democratic Party, including our Colorado elected Democrat officials,
just believe that it's okay for the mom to kill
the child.
Speaker 1 (36:10):
So do they draw the line there?
Speaker 2 (36:13):
If they draw the line there, how do they rationalize it?
Because it's so very wrong to do it anytime.
Yeah, I was really looking forward to doing my worst
show of the year today. Had it all planned out.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
All right, it's a Friday before Labor Day weekend. It's
a beautiful day out. Nobody's going to care, right? I mean,
anybody who happens to be listening, thank God for you, but...
you're not going to care. Nobody's going to care about
anything meaningful this afternoon. And then the Lindsay Clancy trial
blew all that up because all of a sudden, you know,
we had this really important development and it happens to
(00:41):
be not only very important news, it happens to be
in my wheelhouse. It happens to be legal stuff. So yeah,
I think a lot of people are very dialed in
this afternoon in particular to that. So I've been all
over it and anxious to jump in and really looking
forward to doing something that over the years I've I
felt very privileged to do, which is to jump into
(01:02):
these big cases and point something out that almost everybody
else has missed and kind of explains everything. And I've
got one of those for you in the Clancy case
as well.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
So let's get to that right out of the gate.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
I cannot start without talking about not only how happy
I am, but a little I told you so when
it comes to the CU buffs. And, you know, just remember,
I've been talking about how, hey, just Feels like it's
going to be a really good year. Didn't claim any
inside info because I don't have any. I haven't gone
to a practice or anything else. Just after so many
years of following the buffs, just had that feeling it
(01:36):
was going to be a really good year. And even
if they had not blocked that kick at the end
of the game and beat Georgia Tech so dramatically, I
would have felt really encouraged by the progress we saw
last night. So we're not a sports show, so I
won't do the whole X and O, but just bigger
pictures say I think it confirms what I've been saying
all week about Prime. That is a quality individual. He
(01:57):
could have took off when the going got hard. He
had serious health problems he could have blamed, but he's
a winner. And winners don't quit. He hung in there and,
you know, whatever they did out on the recruiting trail
and NIL and all that, they obviously brought in a
lot of, not only talent, because you know how it is.
How many of these five stars bust in college, right?
(02:19):
And it doesn't reveal any underlying character flaw or anything else.
It's just the way life works. They become a five
star and then they start to get glorified. And then
all of a sudden you lose your edge. And so,
so many of these five stars never pan out. But
what the Buffs have right now clearly is a bunch
of dogs. A bunch of guys who are willing to
dig in and fight. And it's a beautiful thing to see.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
So, what a great start to the season.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
I'm very, very optimistic about the CSU Rams also under
Jim Mora. So, That game Saturday should be a great one.
So what a great way to head into this Labor
Day weekend. But the Lindsey Clancy case, what I'm going
to do in this segment is if you haven't been
following the case closely, and my guess is you have not,
like me, like most of us, then I want to
(03:05):
give you a quick background. But then I also want
to point out the one thing that's been missing from
most legal analysis out there that I think clearly explains
what just happened here. And so the quick background on
the case is, as you may have heard by now,
Lindsay Clancy was a labor and delivery nurse at Mass General.
And she and her husband, Patrick, they're living in Duxbury, Mass.
(03:28):
And they've got these three kids. Cora is five. Dawson
is three. Callan is eight months. And she then ends
up strangling the three children on January 24 of 2023
after her husband died. left the house to pick up
takeout food and medication. So while he's gone, and this
(03:52):
was central to the prosecution case, while he's gone, the
three are strangled and killed. You know, Lindsey Clancy then
jumps from a second-story window in an apparent suicide attempt
and was paralyzed during that jump, paralyzed from the waist down. Now,
it was, and there was a lot of evidence on this,
(04:14):
After the youngest, Kellen's birth, Clancy experienced this increasingly serious
psychiatric problems. I don't think anybody, the prosecution wasn't questioning
that she had some psychiatric problems. The big question was, hey,
did she know what she was doing was wrong? And
did she have the ability to control herself? I mean,
(04:36):
there's a lot of legal mumbo jumbo that surrounds that,
but that's what it comes down to. And so there
were all sorts of evidence about, yeah, there was no doubt. And,
you know, probably everybody has known somebody suffering from some
really serious postpartum depression, other mental issues that can sometimes
follow the birth of a child. And so lots of
(04:58):
evidence of anxiety, insomnia, depression, paranoia, suicidal thoughts, intrusive thoughts
about harming the kids. So now here is one key fact.
She had been put in a psychiatric hospital. She wanted
to go there and had been discharged about 19 days
before the killings. And so defense had defended on that
(05:18):
basis and claiming that she had not been adequately treated
for those problems and, in fact, that some of the treatment,
including pharmaceutical, had made things worse. But that's what this
whole trial boiled down to is not did she have
mental illness.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Clearly she did.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
But did she still know that what she was doing
was wrong? And did she have the ability to control it?
So that's what the case came down to. And as
you know, by now, obviously, you know, we had this
very strange scenario that played out in public thanks to,
I think, some really inappropriate behavior by the defense lawyer
in one respect. But where we ended up with an
(05:56):
11-1 split that became very public. And then the one, apparently,
from all the reporting so far and what we can
tell from the judge's comments, you know, the one, you know,
unwilling to acquit at this point and apparently holding out
for conviction. That's the best available information right now. Until
(06:17):
these jurors start to talk, some will, I'm sure, and
we start to get some more information, you know, we
really can't be certain of all that.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
But let's assume for the.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Sake of conversation what everybody else is assuming, which can
be dangerous, but that there was the one holding out
for conviction or at least unwilling to acquit and the
other 11 very strongly wanted to acquit.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
How do we ever get to that point? And one
thing that I think.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Has been missing in a lot of the legal analysis is,
wait a second, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. What does
that mean? Now, we know there's been all sorts of
talk about, you know, a note sent out by the
foreperson saying we've got this one juror who won't abide
by the law, who admits that there's doubt, but still
(07:05):
won't acquit. Is the essence of the reporting on this.
But what I haven't seen discussed is, wait a second,
under Massachusetts law, not Colorado law, Massachusetts law, what is
the definition of reasonable doubt? Because put yourself in the
(07:27):
shoes of those jurors. You're sitting there, you know, you
know everything I just mentioned and a hundred times more.
And you're being told that as a matter of law,
it is not the defendant's burden to prove anything. It's
not the defendant's burden to prove that she was out
of her mind, she couldn't figure out right from wrong,
(07:49):
if she could, she couldn't help herself. She doesn't have
to prove any of that. Once you give notice that
this is your defense, that you're not guilty by reason
of your mental condition, Colorado would call it not guilty
by reason of insanity, that it's all on the prosecution.
They've got to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you
(08:11):
knew right from wrong and that you could control yourself.
They got to prove all that beyond a reasonable doubt,
which brings me to.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
My core point.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
How do they define reasonable doubt in Massachusetts? Now, if
I was a real jerk and doing a typical talk
show thing, I would tease the definition of reasonable doubt
in Massachusetts through the break. But I'm not going to
do that because I am a talk show listener. I
listen to lots of talk shows. And if I'm sitting
there in the car and I'm listening to a talk
(08:43):
show and a host does that to me, I'm never
going to listen to that host again. So here is
the definition of reasonable doubt in Massachusetts. And more specifically,
what the prosecution needs to do to prove a charge
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
Listen to this.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
And then you tell me how hard it would be
for the prosecution to do this in this case and
how easy it would be for a juror to conclude
that guilt had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
Here's a definition.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
A charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after
you have compared and considered all of the evidence, you
have in your mind an abiding conviction that to a
moral certainty, remember those words, that the charge is true.
That language, to a moral certainty, is enormous. Now, what
(09:47):
is the definition of to a moral certainty?
Speaker 1 (09:50):
Wait till you hear this.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
To a moral certainty means the highest degree of certainty
possible in matters related relating to human affairs that is
that the toughest standard for a prosecution to meet that
I have ever seen in my life listen to that
again to a moral certainty means the highest degree of
(10:16):
certainty possible in in matters relating to human affairs. Well,
if I'm sitting on that jury, especially if I'm not
a lawyer and I haven't read a bunch of case
law on this, I'm thinking, wait a second, I've got
to be 100% certain. Now, that's not, by the way,
if you're sitting on a Colorado jury, that's not what
the law requires in terms of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
(10:39):
It's not absolute certainty.
Speaker 3 (10:41):
No.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
But under Massachusetts law, you're sitting on that jury and
somebody tells you to a moral certainty? And that means
the highest degree of certainty possible in matters relating to
human affairs makes it, in a case like this, very, very, very,
very difficult, if not virtually impossible, for a prosecutor to
convict if a jury is going to hold the prosecutor
(11:06):
to that standard. And whether that's going to be the case,
I think, often depends on other factors. You're on the
Dan Kaplan Show.
Speaker 4 (11:20):
Kicking from right to left.
Speaker 5 (11:21):
Spotted down right at the 35.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
45 yarder. A 45 yard attempt with three seconds remaining.
Speaker 6 (11:28):
He makes it.
Speaker 7 (11:29):
They win. He misses.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
The Bucs win. Snap put down.
Speaker 5 (11:33):
Kick is up.
Speaker 4 (11:34):
And it got blocked!
Speaker 1 (11:36):
And the game is over. Boo Carter.
Speaker 4 (11:38):
And Colorado wins at Bobby Dodd. Boo Carter blocked a
field goal. How about the start to 2026 and Prime's
return to Atlanta?
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Oh, what a football game this was. Wow.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Wow, that was so amazing last night. So great call
by Mark Johnson and Gary Burnett.
Speaker 6 (12:00):
303-713-8255-DAN.
Speaker 4 (12:04):
5-7-7-3-9.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Great things ahead, as I've been predicting, for the Buffs
and the CSU Rams under Jim Moore.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
Going to be a great season of football. And then
Air Force.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
You know, Air Force is always going to do the
best they can. The problem right now is with all
the service academies in NIL. Yeah, it's just like the
Ivies in NIL. It just makes it very, very, very,
very hard to compete. But, you know, Air Force is always...
going to do the best humanly possible. Hey, we're talking,
of course, about the Lindsay Clancy case today. If you
(12:34):
just joined us, a headline of my analysis out of
the gate was, wait a second, you don't hear much
about this, but Massachusetts law puts an almost impossible burden
on the prosecutor in a case like this. And so
it's very hard to fault any juror for finding reasonable
doubt when the definition of proof beyond a reasonable doubt
(12:55):
in Massachusetts is so much more demanding than than in
most other places because you have to be convinced to
a moral certainty. And then the definition of moral certainty
means the highest degree of certainty possible in matters relating
to human affairs.
Speaker 6 (13:13):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
Very, very, very tough standard. Much tougher than the typical
proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard. And we'll get into
those distinctions as we go into calls and texts.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
303-713-8255, D-A-N-5-7-7-3-9.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
As part of the setup to this conversation today, I
want to bring you some of the most current sound
from this afternoon. Thanks so much to Shannon Scott behind
the glass for being willing to pull all of this because,
you know, Shannon's been up for what, like 48 hours now.
He went to Georgia to produce that CU Buff game,
flew back with the team afterward and came straight into work.
(13:51):
So that is pretty manly stuff right there. So Let
me let me introduce this element. You have a CNN
panelist essentially saying that if Lindsay Clancy had been black,
she would have been convicted.
Speaker 7 (14:06):
Oh, I think it's a good opportunity to see our
justice system at work. flaws and all. But I think
we can't ignore the nuance of, you know, race, not
just gender, but race. We can't ignore the nuance of,
you know, just the optics of why does this trial?
(14:26):
draw so much attention when there are other things we
could be focusing on. And I just, you know, that
is not to fault anyone for focusing on this. But
at the end of the day, when you talk about
who gets to raise a million dollars when they're accused
of killing three children, We just can't ignore some of
(14:48):
those optics and dynamics. And I think those rightly should
be part of the conversations we're having now. And that
goes even beyond just this particular allegation and this particular trial.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
You know what I don't get is why she just
doesn't come out and say what she's clearly saying. Just
come out and say, hey, I think she would have
been convicted if she was black. I think that's a
fair conversation point. Do you think she's right about that?
Do you think the national interest would be there if
the mother who undeniably, brutally killed three young children had
(15:22):
been black instead of white? Do you think the national
interest would have been there? This goes back to the
conversation that we had for years about the O.J. Simpson trial.
You know, if Nicole Brown Simpson had been black instead
of white, would the national interest have been there? That
question was often raised.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
You know, and so.
Speaker 2 (15:40):
All of those questions are out there. 303-713-8255, the number D-A-N-5-7-7-3-9.
Here's another question that's out there, and that is, and
I'll play some of this sound for you here. You
had a whole bunch of people, mostly women, outside the
(16:01):
courthouse berating the D.A. for pursuing the charges, protesting in
favor of Lindsay Clancy. Why do you think that was happening?
And I'm not putting this question on anybody outside the
courthouse because I didn't cover that trial, let alone in person,
so I didn't get a chance to meet those people.
But is this a case where, and we've been talking
(16:25):
about this in broader context before, do we get to
the point as a society when you have a large
group of folks, primarily Democrats, I'm not saying you're a
typical Democrat, but primarily Democrats, who get to the point
where they believe there is a right to kill a child.
Because nobody can doubt that a child at nine months term,
(16:49):
full term, about to be born, that when that baby
is killed, no honest person doubts that that's just infanticide.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
That's just the killing of a baby.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
It doesn't matter if the baby's located, you know, a
couple inches inside or outside a mom.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
You're still killing a baby. Everybody knows that.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
And so you got a whole big group of people
who say it's just fine to do that because that's
mother's right to kill the baby. So with some out
there protesting now in favor of the mother, is that
just extending the point that, wait a second, it's a
mother's right to kill a child? And as preposterous as
(17:25):
that sounds, when you stop and think about the mentality,
whether you're talking to Jared Polis or John Hickenlooper or
Michael Bennett, or a Joe Biden, or a Barack Obama,
or any of these Democrats, when you're talking about a
mentality that says, yes, no, it is absolutely 100% right
and legal to kill a baby, because that's what they're
(17:47):
saying when they support full-term abortion, then why would they
draw the line there?
Speaker 6 (17:54):
Right?
Speaker 2 (17:55):
And that's not to minimize anything that would happen after
the birth. It's just to talk about the preposterous illogical,
immoral way that they're minimizing the life before the birth,
a minute before the birth. So that's another question that
I think comes into play here. Have we reached a
(18:15):
point where we've got a big block of folks in
society on the left who just believe a mother has
a right to kill the baby? 303-713-8255, DAN-57739, probably the
best example of that would be in another setting, California,
where it's hard to find a state more devoted to
(18:38):
the right.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
To kill children.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
But if somebody other than the mother or a doctor
she picks kills that baby, when the mother is just, say,
eight weeks along in her pregnancy, that's capital murder in California.
They can execute you for that. There's no doubt about
what the truth is.
Speaker 4 (19:01):
You know, I'm not going to stand out here and
listen to this.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
DA Cruz, you had 11 jurors that didn't necessarily believe
your case.
Speaker 7 (19:07):
What do you say to those people who felt that
the whole prosecution was insensitive?
Speaker 1 (19:11):
Was what?
Speaker 7 (19:11):
Insensitive.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
Insensitive?
Speaker 6 (19:13):
Insensitive.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
Insensitive is killing three children. That's the DA. And then
he starts getting heckled outside the courthouse. And I'll play
some of that sound as well. It goes back to
the conversation we were having before the break. 303-713-8255, DAN 57739.
I'll get to some of those texts right now. But
if you just joined us, the point I really want
to add to the conversation that I have not seen
(19:38):
in the legal analysis is, wait a second, Massachusetts has
their own definition of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and
it's much tougher than most other places. And in Massachusetts,
and I read it on air, I won't read the
whole thing on air again, it requires proof to a
moral certainty and then defines that as the highest degree
(19:59):
of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs. And
the prosecution had to prove that she knew right from wrong,
and had the ability to control her actions. And listen,
as I sit here from a million miles away, not
having watched a single minute of that trial, I can't
criticize the 11. I can't criticize the one who held out.
(20:23):
All I can say is just as a person sitting here,
knowing that these three young children were brutally murdered, then
at that point, of course, my human instinct is going
to be to want to see a conviction. to be very,
very concerned about that the precedent it might send, set
the message it might send, you know, to have.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
This woman walk.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
But again, didn't watch the trial, and so just can't
reach a bottom line conclusion. Generally, I would say this.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
I'd say, and I.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
Don't know, we're going to have to hear these jurors
talk and learn more, but in terms of an overarching principle,
be the holdout. It's the holdout's who have shaped world
history for the better. You know, it's the holdouts, the
one who stands up against the 11.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
And you think about.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
Almost everything world-changing that has ever happened. It's been the
one standing up against society. Yeah, Jesus Christ himself standing
up against the world order, standing up against society.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
Be the holdout.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
The people who stood up against slavery. The people who
stood up against separate but equal, that hideous doctrine. The
people who stood up against society and said, no, women should.
Speaker 1 (21:48):
Be able to vote.
Speaker 2 (21:50):
And then the people like my mom, who stood up
in the very beginning against abortion. I mean, it's the
holdouts who changed the world. And we'll have to see
in the end, as we get more information about this case,
whether this is another example of that. But just that principle,
I think, is so enormous. Texters, Dan, it's nice that
(22:13):
she has her supporters. Where's the supporters speaking out for
the dead children? You know, I think probably across America
right now, my guess is that a large majority of
Americans are aghast at the idea that this woman would
potentially walk out Now, she'd be going to a mental hospital.
That would be the referral, but she wouldn't spend the
(22:34):
rest of her life there, presumably. So I think most
Americans at this point would be against an acquittal. But
there are certainly very, very vocal supporters. And while this
defense attorney really did some great work in this trial,
I think he crossed the line when he started to
mount this public campaign against this individual juror. And while
(22:57):
he did not name that person, That's just not what
we do in our system, is to isolate a single juror. Now,
you might be back in chambers outside the public eye
and you're talking to the judge and you might be
talking about an individual juror, but to do so publicly.
Speaker 1 (23:17):
I personally think was crossing a line.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
I'm not saying an ethical line that should lead to
some formal process, but I think it's crossing a line
for the defense attorney to have done that. And my
own suspicions, As to why he did it was not
that he thought it was going to change Judge Sullivan's
mind and get some sort of special instruction or the
juror kicked. I think he was trying to influence the
(23:41):
next jury because it was pretty easy to see. We
were talking about it yesterday, right? By yesterday at the latest,
it was pretty easy to see that there was going
to be a hung jury. So I think he was
trying to influence the next jury. And then when we
got this BS today from the defense attorney, arguing publicly
and then to the Massachusetts Supreme Court that this juror
(24:03):
who was holding out is potentially a bigot, biased against
disabled people. To me, that's absolutely hideous. Unless he had
some actual evidence of that, absolutely hideous. And just, I think, far, far,
far out of bounds. But again, if I'm right, and
I'm guessing, never met the guy, I'm guessing about his motive.
(24:24):
if I'm right in that his motive is to intimidate
the next jurors in the next trial or to poison
that well through this kind of intimidation so that the
prosecutor has to just decide not to pursue charges, not
to pursue a second trial. I just think that's hideous.
And it's too bad because he did a lot of legitimate, good,
(24:44):
legitimate work in the trial, but that kind of stuff, yeah,
that is very, very bad for the system. And I
believe far beyond the bounds of what an attorney should
be doing. And listen, I'm a fighter to the max.
I've proven that over 43 years. You can look at
my track record. You can see the results. But you've
(25:05):
still got to follow the law. And you've still got
to show respect for our jury system and for jurors.
And to be publicly singling out an individual.
Speaker 1 (25:14):
Juror, I just think that's very, very, very wrong.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
Back to sound and text. Dan, Democrats don't care about children.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
We all know that.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
I think that's dangerously overbroad, my friend, the texter. We
know that the people who own and operate the Democratic Party,
the people in power, the people who will hold office,
they have made a deliberate decision that they will support
the mass killing of children in order to get and
keep power. It would be a big mistake to think
your typical Democrat feels that way, because I think there
(25:46):
are many, many, many, many people who habitually vote Democrat
who do not feel that way. And we should not
be giving up on them. They should be our focus
to flip them. We can only win Colorado back by
winning enough Democrats back.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
That's the simple reality.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
And if you think that's too hard, then get out
of the game, because that's what we're going to have
to do. Kevin in Boulder, you're on the Dan Kaplan Show. Welcome.
Speaker 6 (26:11):
You know, there's one valid reason that I could have
for not.
Uh publicly or privately to the jurors saying anything you
know what that is what's that my friend he could
be using jury nullification.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
And do you want to expand on that a little
bit and everybody knows jury nullification is when somebody tries
to get a jury to disobey the law um so
what do you see happening.
Speaker 6 (26:43):
Here Well, jury notification is when a juror or jurors
don't agree with the law or the way the law
is being used in that case. So he could have
a reason of his own for not agreeing with the
law or how it's being used in that case.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
Yeah. Kevin, appreciate the call on that.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
And then I do think it is just flat out
unethical for– which means illegal, right? Because lawyers can't legally
do unethical things. It's just flat out unethical to try
to convince a jury to set aside the law. And
(27:22):
if I'm right, and if this defense attorney is trying
to intimidate future jurors in a second trial by claiming
the holdout is some sort of bigot against disabled people, yeah,
that that would go beyond the law and I think
be fundamentally wrong. Charles, you're on the Dan Kaplan Show. Welcome.
Speaker 5 (27:43):
I just had a simple thought. If she had killed
someone else's children, would we be in this debacle? Wow.
Speaker 1 (27:53):
That's a brilliant thought.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
What do you think would be happening right now if
it had been somebody else's children that she killed?
Speaker 5 (28:01):
I feel there wouldn't be as many problems with the
jury and that. Obviously, Just prayers go out to these
jurors who have basically signed up to warp the rest
of their lives.
Speaker 6 (28:15):
How could you ever be a juror.
Speaker 5 (28:18):
In this case and saw seeing those exhibits?
Speaker 2 (28:22):
Right.
Speaker 1 (28:22):
What a great point. And not be affected the rest
of your life.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
And to answer your brilliant question, Charles, I think it's
100 percent certainty. that if she had killed somebody else's
children instead of her own, she would have been convicted
after about two hours of deliberation. Really, really good thinking there, Charles.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
Thank you. 303-713-8255, DAN-57739. Hey, getting flooded with texts and
calls on this. Come back, take those.
Speaker 2 (28:51):
I want to get you some more of the current
sound from the day on this as well. So many
things happening here that we don't normally see.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
And then where do you.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Think this comes from, this crowd of protesters outside supporting
the mother and yelling awful things at the DA? Where
do you think that comes from, and what do you
think that means? You're on The Dan Kaplan Show.
Speaker 1 (29:17):
CNN.
Speaker 3 (29:19):
A mistrial has been ordered by the judge, and the
question is, what about the jurors? I can tell you
from our producer in the courtroom that when the judge said,
I want to tell you all how proud I am
of you, there was one female juror that was nodding
her head no as he was saying all that, another
female juror clenching her hands into fists as she was
(29:43):
sitting on that chair. All of the jurors were extremely tense.
One female juror would not even open her eyes. Her
eyes were gazed down in her lap. Her eyes were
closed as the judge continued to talk to them about
what this final decision was. Another juror just nodded her
(30:05):
head the entire time he was talking, and another female
juror was pursing her lips. We can now tell you
the judge has left the bench. So this proceeding, this trial,
has now concluded. There was no verdict, but it was
a mistrial that was ordered by Judge Sullivan.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
Yeah, and what comes next.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
Please stand by.
Speaker 4 (30:24):
You're looking at live.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
Yeah. Here's what comes next.
Speaker 2 (30:27):
Prosecutions are going to have to decide whether to proceed
to a second trial. And as you probably know, the
way they'll make that determination is to go ahead and
interview the jurors and they'll gather information. And if it
was 11 to 1 against them, that's going to weigh
against a second trial, but it's not going to be
(30:47):
conclusive because that the prosecutor, as you would want to do,
prosecutor is going to want to know, okay, what were
the dynamics in there? Is this a case where We had, say,
one extremely strong leader on the jury who then, you know,
another 10 went along with and then somebody stood up to?
Or is it a case where we really had 11
(31:09):
who just all saw the same thing and just strongly
believed that we could not meet our burden of proof?
That would weigh against a second trial. In that case, then,
you know, prosecutor tried to get some kind of deal,
you know, some kind of deal, but wouldn't have a
whole lot of leverage at that point. You know, defense attorney,
on the other hand, but by all accounts, in the
(31:31):
trial itself, did a very good job. I didn't follow
the case, but by all accounts, did a very good job.
Based on the result, did a very good job.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
What I saw of the defense.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
Attorney in the end, trying to publicly vilify the holdout
juror and say they were a bigot who must be
prejudiced against disabled people, I think that was despicable and
absolutely contrary to the duties of an attorney in that situation.
And so the defense attorney, you know, he obviously needed,
(32:01):
not just wanted, he needed the acquittal here because he
knows that it's never going to get any better for
him than it is now, that the prosecution is going
to learn from this trial. And if the prosecution does
pursue a second trial, that the prosecution is going to
do a much better job.
Speaker 1 (32:19):
And so, yeah. And I love the point. I think
Jonathan Turley made the point.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
He does a good job on Fox as a legal analyst.
I think it was his point that, hey, if you're
one number short of a Powerball ticket, you still don't
have a winning Powerball ticket. So yeah, it had to
be frustrating for the defense attorney to come that close
to an outright acquittal, but that doesn't mean that he won.
And that doesn't give him the right to go out
there and try to publicly vilify this holdout juror. I
(32:47):
am just, I'm really looking forward to hopefully learning who
that juror was and what they were thinking and how
this all broke down without knowing the case. I can't
sit here and know whether the holdout is a hero
or the holdout is someone who was just being irrationally obstinate.
I just can't know from a distance at this point.
(33:10):
What I do, I do in general, just really respect
people who are willing to hold out against Even how
most of society sees something at the moment, because it
wasn't that long ago in this country, most of society
thought that slavery should be legal. Remember, it's not that
long ago in this country. And the people who are
(33:30):
willing to stand up to that, you know, I compare
that to the people willing to stand up to abortion,
you know, today and in the early days of that fight. So, yeah,
the people who hold out, you know, when they have
good cause and a very just and moral cause, They're
the most admirable people in our society and in world history.
I just don't know if this juror is one of
(33:51):
them yet. We just need to learn more.
Speaker 1 (33:54):
303-713-8255, DAN-57739. So many texts.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
I'll try to get through them as quick as I can.
Speaker 1 (34:01):
Dan, Lindsay didn't do it.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
It was all Patrick, her husband. Look into it yourself.
Patrick was never investigated at all. Patrick did it, exclamation point.
I know that this case was streamed, and there were
a lot of people following it every day, kind of
like OJ was followed, but on nowhere near that scale.
And there were a lot of people, you know, this
whole theory got going that the husband did it. I'm
not aware of any evidence that supports that, and it's
(34:24):
certainly not what the defense or prosecution was contending. Dan,
if these weren't her own children, this wouldn't be an issue.
The public would be ready to lynch her. Yeah, Charles
from New Mexico had made that point. I agree a
thousand percent. you know, would have been a conviction in
20 minutes if it had been somebody else's kids.
Speaker 1 (34:44):
So then take that a step further. What does that
tell you? What does that tell you?
Speaker 2 (34:49):
And then we played the CNN sound earlier where the
analyst was saying, hey, essentially saying that if Lindsay Clancy
had been black, she would have been convicted, convicted quickly,
and America wouldn't be paying attention anyway. Do you agree
or disagree with that analyst's Dan, $ 10 million of taxpayer
money will go to trying to decide if a woman
that strangles children is okay. And this goes to a
(35:14):
broader point, right? When we talk about people outside protesting
in her favor, and I'm not saying everybody protesting in
her favor sees it this way, but I think this
reminds us of the reality, the immoral and absurd and
horrifically dangerous reality of where the people who run the
(35:35):
Democratic Party are right now, and that is that they
simply believe a woman has a right to kill a child,
at least a child who's full term, and nobody doubts
that's a child. Nobody doubts that that child's ready to
be born, that just because it's a couple inches inside
the mom instead of outside the mom, that.
Speaker 1 (35:56):
It isn't the same child.
Speaker 2 (35:57):
Everybody knows it is on every level. But the people
who run the Democratic Party and the people in power
in the Democratic Party, including our Colorado elected Democrat officials,
just believe that it's okay for the mom to kill
the child.
Speaker 1 (36:10):
So do they draw the line there?
Speaker 2 (36:13):
If they draw the line there, how do they rationalize it?
Because it's so very wrong to do it anytime.
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 Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!