The Clancy jury apparently will end in a mistrial
A mistrial was my prediction, because I think this has been an inherently difficult case to decide and reasonable people can differ. It involves an especially heinous and heartbreaking crime, the murder of three young children by their mother. But I believe there nevertheless is reasonable doubt about Lindsay Clancy’s mental state at the time of the killings (see my previous posts on the case).
What might happen in a second trial? Perhaps a plea deal of some sort; it’s very hard to say.
However, I was surprised to read yesterday that there is apparently only a single juror who is holding out:
The trial of Lindsay Clancy — which has captivated the nation since July — took a bombshell turn on Thursday when it was revealed that there was one juror who disagreed with the rest following 36 hours of intense deliberation.
The news, which came via a note from the forewoman that a single holdout “refuses to listen to the law” on reasonable doubt, left Clancy’s lawyer Kevin Reddington visibly raging — and demanding the person be kicked off the 12-person jury and replaced with an alternate.
The judge did not grant that demand. But it sounds as though the holdout is for a guilty verdict and the rest are not – although, as I’ve said before, I don’t see how Clancy goes free and I don’t think she will, whatever the verdict.
The law in Massachusetts on this is very unusual – in fact, I think it is singular. This is how it works [emphasis mine]:
Once the defense raises the issue of the accused’s mental state at the time of the crime, prosecutors bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible, said Daniel Medwed, a university distinguished professor of law.
“In Massachusetts, we don’t typically use the term ‘insanity defense,’” Medwed said, citing the stigma that attaches to the word “insanity.” Instead, it’s referred to as “lack of criminal responsibility.” …
In Massachusetts, the defense may apply when a person’s mental condition prevents them from understanding or controlling their actions at the time of an alleged crime, including during an episode of psychosis. A qualifying mental disease or defect also need not fit a specific medical diagnosis.
You can see how this might lead to a situation in which a holdout juror refuses to listen to the law on reasonable doubt. That’s because the law on this in Massachusetts is very much tilted in favor of the defendant. In other states, the burden of proof for lack of criminal responsibility is different:
In many jurisdictions, insanity is an affirmative defense, meaning the burden falls on the defense to prove that a defendant had “a mental disease or defect” that prevented them from understanding the nature of their actions, Medwed said. But that is not the case in Massachusetts, he said.
Procedurally, that means the defense “doesn’t have to do as much” in the way of persuading jurors compared with other states, according to Medwed.
However, an affirmative defense doesn’t have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It needs to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence, defending on the jurisdiction.
The state of things as I write these words is this:
The judge in Lindsay Clancy’s trial has given the defense one hour to make an emergency appeal before declaring a mistrial. …
A filing from Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney has been submitted to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, according to the clerk’s office.
And the court is on lunch break.
There’s a huge difference between deciding that someone is too mentally ill to understand the meaning of his actions, and deciding that he is too mentally ill to control his actions. I think the latter is an easier conclusion to come to.
But it also brings with it an obligation to lock up the perpetrator, who can’t be trusted to control his behavior. I’m OK with confining Clancy in a mental institution rather than a prison. Whether Massachusetts can be trusted on that score, I don’t know.
Neo, does this procedure really exist in MA??
“and demanding the person be kicked off the 12-person jury and replaced with an alternate.”
…
“A filing from Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney has been submitted to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, according to the clerk’s office.”
Watt:
Apparently it exists on paper, but how often it is requested or granted I don’t know. I doubt very often at all.
Wendy Laubach:
Precedent says she will be locked up, probably for a very long time. Of course, it’s not completely predictable, but that’s what usually would happen even in Massachusetts.
Personally…whatever decisions are made, I think it should include a hysterectomy…
A “burden” perceived is a burden aborted is an ethical Choice prosecuted with liberal license. A human rite Planned for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress.
Automaton Intelligence (AI) is a model of agency without culpability for choice. All’s fair in lust and abortion.
To the one man who held his ground, this is for you:
Then out spake the lone juror
Thinking of her children’s fate:
To every man upon this earth
Big choices come soon or late.
And how can man decide better
When facing evil shrews,
To stand alone against the murderess,
While giving AWFLs all the blues
I wonder about psychosis as a defense in this or any murder. I understand that it’s an allowable defense in legal terms but it strikes me in a similar way that adding hate crime charges to any crime does: I don’t understand why it’s worse to harm someone with hate in your heart than to harm them for no identifiable reason. Coming to such a verdict requires mind reading—we adjudge that “you felt X feelings while committing the crime so you’re more guilty.” Conversely, we adjudge that “you were psychotic when committing this crime so you’re less guilty or even not guilty.” I might feel better about a verdict that says “we adjudge you to have been psychotic when committing this crime but this does not mitigate your guilt. You will therefore be confined without possibility of release for 30 years.” (40 years? Forever?) But it still wouldn’t sit right with me. Your victims were harmed – in this case, dead – no matter what you were thinking. And a successful psychosis defense might encourage others to try it, at least in Massachusetts, right?
You called it. It is unusual.
I’d be wary of assuming at this point it’s a fact that it was 11-1 for acquittal, though it is certainly getting repeated over and over. But let’s suppose it was.
There were two “not guilty” verdicts available to the jury: “not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility” and just “not guilty”. And we don’t know which the 11 were seeking: had the jury found just plain “not guilty”, would Clancy necessarily be confined anywhere at all?
As you can see, the jury had to choose from five possible verdicts, and it had to be unanimous which of the five they chose. There are a lot of ways they could have failed to reach a verdict even if they all agreed about criminal responsibility.
Empathetic abortive ideation? Maybe, baby.
Mistrial is declared; defense emergency appeal didn’t have an effect. Prosecution is not saying if they will re-try Clancy.
MrsX:
“Coming to such a verdict requires mind reading—we adjudge that “you felt X feelings while committing the crime so you’re more guilty.” Conversely, we adjudge that “you were psychotic when committing this crime so you’re less guilty or even not guilty.”
This is exactly how I feel. I think it’s unreasonable to ask jurors to make what amounts to a psychiatric evaluation of the defendant. There is no way to know what was going on in Clancy’s head when she committed these crimes. Is it possible she was suffering from post-partum psychosis? Yes, but her mental state should only be used to decide where she is incarcerated not the length of her sentence.
There will be a lot of pressure to have her released after a few years. Pressure that the legal system in Massachusetts is not immune to.
@Geoffrey Britain:I think it’s unreasonable to ask jurors to make what amounts to a psychiatric evaluation of the defendant.
They weren’t asked to do this, for the purpose of finding her criminally responsible. They were asked to determine if she could conform her conduct to laws and rules. To judge that, they just had to know how she behaved herself when she wasn’t strangling her children. They had plenty of evidence presented about how she had behaved not just that day but for weeks prior to that as well as afterward.
One juror didn’t believe that the defense proved insanity beyond a reasonable doubt to rationalize Planned or premeditated homicide. One juror doesn’t subscribe to the State-established Pro-Choice religion that denies women’s dignity and agency, and advocates, delegates performance of human rites to relieve perceived “burdens” of state and mind. One juror rejects bloc ideology under the umbrella of Critical Diversity Theory. One juror rejects the notion of lives deemed unworthy of life for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress.
Send her to Planned Parent…hood is an ethical Choice to relieve a “burden” of State by way of Capital Abortion for light and casual causes… or Capital punishment for Planned or premeditated homicide as every other sentence handed down under equal conditions following due process.
It seems to me that the behavior of this Reddington fellow has been way out of line. After the lone juror’s identity is leaked, which I assume will happen shortly, I hope he sues for defamation.
It seems to me that the behavior of this Reddington fellow has been completely outrageous. After the lone juror’s identity is leaked, which I assume will happen shortly, I hope he sues for defamation.
My old criminal law professor always pointed to a permissible verdict under Scottish Law, namely, “Guilty but Insane.” I think this might fit this situation.
It led to extended periods of incarceration in a mental institution.
https://instapundit.com/820977/#disqus_thread
Woman fixated on Clancy child kills her child.
I really admire the lone holdout. Seems we have long entered a time opposite of Pater Familias where a woman can kill her children for the thinnest of excuses.
Niketas Choniates at 3:56 pm
Gregory Harper stated that, “I think it’s unreasonable to ask jurors to make what amounts to a psychiatric evaluation of the defendant.”
Not I.
@Niketas Choniates, this is the first really insightful comment that I’ve read on this issue, thank you for writing it. It’s the first time I’ve seen the quandry that the jury was subjected to, not just a simple ‘Guilty’, ‘Not Guilty’ choice, but an array of nuanced choices. It will be interesting to see what comes out in the subsequent media wash. I’m not at all convinced that the lone juror was the only one not voting for acquittal.
I am fascinated to think that anybody could review such methodical attention to detail as she planned this atrocity, calculated and fairly complex, methodical – and then conclude that she was psychotic. She might be criminally insane, but she was not dis-associative or not understanding the consequences, as thoroughly planned as this was.
I’m convinced that all of the pink shirt demonstration nonsense outside the courthouse has been astroturfed. It has the same exact feel as other such events that have proven to be underwritten by the Soros-associated NGOs. The ‘tell’ is the amount of planning, the coordinated wardrobe, and the expert way that it’s made to look pseudo-legitimate. The media coverage always gives them the best visuals, and that’s no exception here, either.
Strangling your 3 children, watching each of them struggling and gasping with face turning red and eyes bulging is just too horrific an act for a temporary hormonal imbalance defense. She forfeited her own right to life when she denied those children’s right to life. Crazy or not, in those moments she knew what she was doing because this was inarguably premeditated. I side with the lone male juror who almost certainly didn’t buy the defense’s argument.
Sorry, duplicate
I care about evaluating the criminal defendant’s mindset, because it bears on whether a need for retribution and deterrence is part of the policy choice for punishment. I don’t feel a need for retribution against a rabid dog. I empathize very strongly indeed with the dog, and yet I’m reconciled to killing it. It can’t have a decent quality of remaining life no matter what happens, and it can’t be turned loose on the street.
If there were such a thing as a simple, well-understood, and uncontroversial mental condition, such as a brain tumor, that caused a horrific murder but left us convinced that the patient was “not himself” and not responsible for his actions, I’d still advocate confining the patient in reasonably humane security, possibly for life. It’s tough on him, but there’s no reasonable alternative that’s not unforgivably tough on everyone else.
Psychiatric conditions such as post-partum depression or psychosis, aggravated by ill-advised drug cocktails, present a less clear picture. But I don’t feel retributive toward Lindsey Clancy the way I do toward a male (or less commonly female) “family annihilator,” or toward a female (or less commonly male) parent who drowns kids that have come to appear solely a burden that are getting in the way of a more convenient life with a new partner in a cleaner house. A big clue is in the instant determination of the perpetrator to destroy himself rather than live with what he or she has done. If that’s notably absent, we’re just in psycho killer territory, and you have to put the rabid dog down.
Admittedly there’s no bright line between an ordinary moral wretch and someone so mentally addled that they can never be expected to function at the most basic trustworthy level in society, but there are extremes in that spectrum that I have little trouble distinguishing between, when it comes to how merciful the lockup for life ought to be.
“there nevertheless is reasonable doubt about Lindsay Clancy’s mental state”
I don’t see any reasonable doubt about her mental state. Of course she’s insane; killing your children in these circumstances is an insane act.
So what?
Her actions as reported indicate premeditation and the mental ability to carry out her plan.
Guilty. 3 counts, 1st-degree murder. I live in a death sentence state; that sounds appropriate in this situation – no doubt of guilt.
And we certainly don’t need the precedent that a woman can commit a crime and use “hormones” as an excuse.
Unwilling…. A THOUSAND GOLD STARS, and may we do as well when the cup comes to us,
As to sufficiently insane; either she didn’t know what she was doing or she was doing or she was driven by an irresistible impulse> She tried to commit suiced from a twelve-foot window? You to feet first and you’ll get hurt, Head first and you’ll screw it up because reflexes take over. Remember the firs, or the tenth time you tried to go head first off the low board ad the swimming pool? And how do you do a header out a window? That’s some pretty impressive scrambling and you still can’t do it. Also reports of blood on the siding, as if she’d clambered out, held on and dropped a total of about five feet. Rationally, she couldn’t have planned on dying. But paralysis means an odd impact which muddies the waters. And the call to the suicide hot line. Not specific enough to trigger help. Was she laying crumbs?Which would leave us with she really wanted to kill her kids and tried to fake her way out of responsibility? And then back to….is that insane for purposes of ghe verdict?
Matt Taibbi put up a short post, on which Sasha Stone commented.
https://www.racket.news/p/note-on-a-mistrial
They both agree that the Clancy Fan Club is insane.
Sasha does not think Clancy was.
https://www.sashastone.com/p/why-lindsay-clancy-is-guilty-beyond
One of Sasha’s commenters made an observation I haven’t seen elsewhere in the Punditsphere, including Sasha’s own post.
Does anyone know if this is true?
AesopFan:
I constantly see complete misunderstanding of what psychosis is – in all its variety – and how a person can in fact plan and function while under the sway of psychosis.
And the word “insane” is actually meaningless in this case. It is not the legal standard by which Clancy might be found to have had reduced criminal responsibility. I think people are letting their everyday ideas about “insanity” get in the way of the relevant legal standard in Massachusetts:
There’s also this:
That’s the more basic question with Clancy: she would not only have to have known right from wrong at the time (I think she probably did) but she would also have to have been able to “conform her conduct” to the law despite having a mental disease or defect. That last part is the real question: could she or couldn’t she conform her conduct to the law? In order to find that she could, it would have to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.. I think there clearly was reasonable doubt on that score.
Nor do we know what the 11 jurors had decided on. There were many possibilities, but we can be pretty sure it wasn’t murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence. Of the other possibilities:
I think most likely it was not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility, and subsequent commitment, which would probably end up being for a very very long time.
Can we assume we know what the holdout wanted? Almost certainly it wasn’t not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility. But I wouldn’t assume it was guilty of murder either. It could have been guilty of second-degree murder or of manslaughter. We simply don’t know.
Here’s a hypo, just for grins: Presume Clancy regains her mobility and, through some weird mix-up of law and med/psych operations, is walking around free in a short time. She applies for a jub at a day care center. Is turned down. Do her fans riot? Sort of like a judgment of the movement here. How bad is it? Or woludl they go back to writing to Liuigi, he of he eyebrows?
Massachusetts law appears to me to be a large part of the problem. It puts the burden of the defense on the state rather than on the defendant. Plus, as you keep pointing out, Neo, people don’t understand psychosis. I don’t understand psychosis. If she is committed to psychiatric care rather than prison and psychiatric care in that context, she could, theoretically, recover and be released. We have to trust the state to make that a long, long time.
God rest those three murdered little ones.
‘Jurors are instructed that in order to prove a defendant is criminally responsible for their conduct, prosecutors must “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense.”’
Ouch! Innocent until proven guilty, but insane until proven sane. For the sanity test, the “reasonable doubt” standard is too high. Not enough of the general population these days is reasonable enough to ever convict with such a heavy burden placed on prosecution.
A mother’s murder of her children can never be excused under any circumstances I can think of. But we’re not talking about excusing it–though I know Clancy’s deranged fanbase is, which puts them simply beyond the pale.
What sane, morally responsible people are talking about is punishment and mercy, which can vary depending on what’s going on with a desperately deranged person who can never be set free on the streets again.
From whatI’ve heard, she’s either going to spend the rest of her life in prison or the rest of her life in a hospital for the criminally insane. Either way, she ain’t getting out.
I read the first hold is only 40 days, the second six months and after that indefinite with an annual review.
@BJ:From what I’ve heard… the rest of her life in a hospital for the criminally insane.
You’ve heard wrong. The hospital lets her out whenever a court agrees she’s should be let out, and it will be based on how she’s doing then, not on anything she’s done in the past. There’s no “hospital sentence”, it’s not a punishment. You can’t punish someone for being “not guilty”.
Lorena Bobbitt was let out after 45 days. John Hinckley has been out since 2016 and there are no restrictions on his freedom whatever since 2022.