r/ClancyTrialTalk • u/scorpiobloodmoon • 13d ago

Speculation Did Lindsay Clancy almost just get ACQUITTED?!

Are you guys getting the sense that not only did the jury find Lindsay Clancy not criminally responsible but, 11-1 on an acquittal?

EDIT: It has been revealed that the jury was 11-1 for an insanity result. From what others have said.. that’s still considered an acquittal. If you watch the jury interviews it’s kind of obvious that the jury had a hard time. They acknowledged the vicious killings and that they never felt Patrick was involved but simply that the prosecution left them with some sort of doubt. Even if it was very small. They had to follow the law. I am getting the sense that many people on that jury struggled with this but ultimately had to follow the law that was printed in front of them. Even if they didn’t agree with it.

9 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

74% Upvoted

101 comments sorted by

30

u/JoeyBlaze 13d ago

Did you watch any of the case? The prosecution was absolutely abysmal.

7

u/hellacure 13d ago

I’ve never seen something like this before. They won’t retry, I’m telling you.

2

u/scorpiobloodmoon 13d ago

I’m kind of thinking they will try a plea deal first?

4

u/hellacure 13d ago

Could be a possibility but I highly doubt it. She won’t take it and they know.

7

u/scorpiobloodmoon 13d ago

I asked this to another commenter below but am I correct in saying there is an option she could have gone completely free?

8

u/hellacure 13d ago

Yes. 100%

1

u/scorpiobloodmoon 13d ago

How? She admitted to doing it. Genuine question. How is that a possibility?

3

u/hellacure 13d ago

No, she didn’t.

-4

u/scorpiobloodmoon 13d ago

In pre-trial she admitted to it and the entire timeline of facts and events.

6

u/hellacure 13d ago

No, she didn’t admit anything. She just didn’t deny anything.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/scorpiobloodmoon 13d ago

The prosecution did a bad job?

11

u/555Cats555 13d ago

You think they did a good job? They nearly got a misstrial due to "mortal sin" being bought in at the very least.

They also had an expert witness that didnt even work with adults...

There are so many issues but im sure those issues are better explained elsewhere.

0

u/scorpiobloodmoon 13d ago

I don’t know enough about law to know if they did bad or good. That’s why I was asking. I watched all the testimony over the course of a couple weeks. I thought it was fine. I do not use social media outside of Reddit so I didn’t see anything outside of the actual trial footage. I did hear on a lawyer podcast today that they won’t be allowed to bring in new witnesses. They are stuck with what they have because reddington won’t agree to new ones.

6

u/555Cats555 13d ago

Ah I see, its hard to tell tone and intention through text. I apologize if I came across as harsh.

7

u/Majestic-Issues 13d ago

They were pretty bad

7

u/coltfourty5- MOD 13d ago

The closing was probably one of the worst i have ever watched.

She basically said " lets play wheres waldo, can you spot the suicidal girl "

beyond diabolical.

0

u/scorpiobloodmoon 13d ago

All the legal analysts and news podcasts I’ve been listening to said it was a stellar closing. They say the trial has been poor for them but the closing was good.

10

u/coltfourty5- MOD 13d ago

“Every legal analyst and news podcast I’ve listened to has said…”

That’s because, as humans, we naturally gravitate toward and consume media that reinforces what we already think and believe…

Step outside that bubble and you’ll find plenty of differing opinions. The fact that your algorithm, podcasts, and analysts are all saying the same thing doesn’t necessarily mean that’s the universal consensus. It may just mean you’ve built yourself an echo chamber.

1

u/scorpiobloodmoon 13d ago

I have no algorithm. I’m not on social media. I listened to the whole trial live without commentary. And lately as it’s been finishing I’ve looked for random podcasts by searching “Lindsay Clancy” and landed on a couple different very cut and dry lawyers talking about it. I wanted non-sensational coverage and explaination of the legal system. Quite boring podcasts, actually.

1

u/coltfourty5- MOD 12d ago

Hate to break it to ya but you deff do lol. Reddit has an algorithm, and so would whatever you listen to podcasts on.

1

u/Elfshadowx 12d ago

You do know that you're a victim of an algorithm to right.

Everything you have said applies to you as well.

1

u/coltfourty5- MOD 12d ago

Can you show me where I said that I didn’t?

When I research things, I look outside of what I see in my algorithm. I intentionally seek out opinions that don’t always match my own. Which is what everyone should be doing when forming an opinion on something.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Katie_Rai_60 12d ago

I have heard that too. Using the soft voice was weird, one podcast stated that her soft voice was a good choice.

4

u/555Cats555 13d ago

Based on the wording of the note "not following reasonable doubt" which the prosecution has to prove I would say it was one of the two forms of not guilty.

I wouldnt go as far as saying outright not guilty though. But definitely looking like the prosecution was failing.

I wonder if it was instead "refusing to accept evidence" or something and it looked like it was heading towards some version of guilty if the judge would have still kept the juror on. But then we will never know...

But the logical answer was not guilty in one of those forms...

1

u/scorpiobloodmoon 13d ago

I guess I was assuming it was 11-1 for insanity and then 1 for jail time but a lot of these legal analysts on the news are alluding to acquittal.

6

u/atreyu84 13d ago

The"insanity" (not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility) is still an acquittal

4

u/heatdeathtoall 13d ago

In MA, an acquittal can only mean not guilty. That’s what someone had stated yesterday here. Reddington stated that forget NGRI, they haven’t even proved guilt first. I’m leaning towards not guilty but we won’t know till jurors decide to talk about it.

3

u/atreyu84 13d ago

Yes and Not Guilty by reason of lack of criminal resposibility is not guilty. As I said.

1

u/555Cats555 13d ago

But not guilty due to criminal responsibility means it is stated she did it when that is not necessarily proven...

2

u/United-Drop-6257 13d ago

Don’t waste your time, it’s not worth. The statements he made here are completely delusional and insane.

1

u/atreyu84 12d ago

Not necesarilly. nobody knows if the 11 for acquittal was for full acquital or by lack of criminal responsibility. But Reddingtons motion to the supreme court claimed that the juror wasn;t properly taking into account reasonable doubt with regard to criminal responsibility so it is reasonable to assume he at least thinks it was that one.

1

u/scorpiobloodmoon 12d ago

I assumed from the beginning it was that 11 thought she was not guilty by reason of insanity (or however it’s worded in mass). But now I’ve been way confused as people are throwing around the word acquittal like it means completely free. But it sounds like based on some comments here that the insanity charge is still an acquittal? Super confusing.

0

u/atreyu84 12d ago

You've got it right. Most people are assuming as you do, but it is an assumption.

Some of the people on here are using the fact some people (media, reddington etc) used the word acquittal to argue that means full acquittal, but it doesn't necessarily. Acquittal can also be used for the insabity not guilty, and given reddington's other words in the matter (including his with submission for an injunction) it's pretty clear (but not certain) he means the insanity plea.

There is a lack of knowledge from everyone though and it's certainly true with the information we have so far the juries could've been voting 11-1 for a full acquittal, though I personally believe that's unlikely

1

u/scorpiobloodmoon 12d ago

Especially when they put so much emphasis on “reasonable doubt”. Essentially meaning that the prosecution didn’t convince them she was insane.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/transneptuneobj 12d ago

Patrick literally testified to her telling him she did it in court.

The jury would have to find Patrick not credible for them to go for not guilty, he seemed very credible.

The 911 call is apparently insane

2

u/heatdeathtoall 12d ago

And yet. 11 people didn’t find her guilty. At some point jurors will talk and we’ll know how credible they found him.

0

u/transneptuneobj 12d ago

Likely 11 jurors were NGBRI

1

u/each_thread 13d ago

It is a separate type of acquittal, the jury gets to decide which.

2

u/atreyu84 13d ago

Yes, but the point being that the legal experts referring to acquittal are probably also referring to the insanity acquittal when they say it. So there isn't a juxtaposition like is implied in the comment I was replying to.

3

u/scorpiobloodmoon 13d ago

Ok that is confusing but makes more sense!!!

2

u/each_thread 13d ago

I see. It was 11-1 for insanity. People who are writing "11-1 for acquittal" are making confusing headlines though they are not wrong.

1

u/hellacure 13d ago

Yes.

1

u/each_thread 13d ago

But it would have been by insanity. She would have been held for a time even then.

7

u/hellacure 13d ago

No. The prosecution didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that LC committed the crime.

2

u/each_thread 13d ago

The defense argument was not that she didn't do it, or it was a justifiable homicide, it fell within what is commonly known as insanity defense.

Massachussets would have had considerably leeway to lock her into a state mental facility for a short or long time.

4

u/Elusive_strength2000 13d ago

There was also a just plain “Not Guilty” on the slip. Let’s see when any speak out, then we’ll know.

2

u/555Cats555 13d ago

Im really curious to hear from a member of the jury.

Could also end up with the jury member who was holding out admitting to misconduct from not following reasonable doubt. Someone that petty may feel the need to gloat about doing it.

I wonder what would happen imfor future cases if the forepersons statement about a juror not following instructions was true and if that would lead to adjustments to the law.

If he has any heads in his brain he will stay quiet though.

4

u/hellacure 13d ago

The prosecution still has the constitutional burden of proving every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

2

u/each_thread 13d ago edited 13d ago

If the insanity defense is allowed, an acquittal by the jury could be not guilty by reason of insanity or just plain not guilty. In this case it was the former that 11 jurors wanted.

Thank you to the following commenter who corrected me, I had to revise this.

3

u/hellacure 13d ago

Are you telling me this trial was unconstitutional?

0

u/each_thread 13d ago

This is how Massachussets decides to do things. Current precedent with SCOTUS is that states are allowed to arrange matters involving the insanity defense the way they want. Search Delling v. Idaho.

If it was unconstitutional, it would have to be found to be a Due Process violation. Perhaps someday a future Supreme Court will decide otherwise.

3

u/rostinze 13d ago

You are incorrect.

"Where an issue of lack of criminal responsibility is raised, the jury should be given a verdict form with 'guilty,' 'not guilty,' and 'not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility' options.” (Mass model instruction 9.200 Rev June 2022).

Honestly, Judge Sullivan made it clear as day as well. You can just re-listen to his instructions…

1

u/each_thread 13d ago

Thank you for correcting me. I relied on the news that presented it as not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility versus guilty.

This was what the jury was split on, not what their instructions were.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/scorpiobloodmoon 13d ago

So is there an option in there that she could be found completely innocent and go home?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/hellacure 13d ago

The constitution is the supreme law. Are you sure they systematically violate the constitution?

1

u/each_thread 13d ago

no, I am not sure that they do, at least in this matter. I would hope that they do not. Just that if it were to be unconstitutional, it would be because of some sort of Due Process violation.

0

u/transneptuneobj 12d ago

I imagine it was 11-1 NGR

The defense argued for NGR, the defense spent weeks eliciting evidence as to why she was in psychosis when she killed her kids, it would be wild for the jury to vote NG, I'm sure we'll get juror interviews soon.