Lindsey Clancy Case Update: Mistrial Declared, Retrial Date Discussed Amidst Legal Maneuvers

Foreign.

Jenna Ellis: M. This is our AFR exclusive podcast, where we do a deep dive into issues that you want to hear about from guests that you love to hear from. And Lindsey Clancy is back in the news because she was back in court Tuesday for the first time since her Massachusetts murder trial ended in a mistrial due to a hung jury on September 4th. So I've gotten a lot of questions from listeners about what's going on. what about the holdout juror? How can she possibly, go to trial for a second time? Because how could you possibly get an unbiased jury? all of those are great questions. So a little bit of background before we welcome in our guests. so at this week's status conference, it was. It raised a number of issues, and this isn't just going to immediately go back to trial and. And may not even be the same charges or defenses, which I find fascinating, but that's not, of course, unprecedented. prosecutors did not specifically say if they will retry Clancy and if so, on what charges. However, during the hearing, both sides discussed setting a retrial date. of course, speedy trial attaches, and, even if you set trial dates, a lot can happen in the interim to either postpone or nullify that. Clint Clancy's attorney, Reddington, told the judge that there's no evidence his client actually admitted to strangling her children, though during trial, he argued only that she wasn't criminally responsible for his at.

Defense Challenges Cause of Death, Alleging Reversal in Strategy Amidst Psychosis Defense

For her actions due to a postpartum psychosis. And so this sounds like a sharp reversal from his end, because at trial, the defense did accept that Clancy caused the deaths of her three children and focused on pretty much solely on whether psychosis meant she was not criminally responsible or even not guilty. And so her lawyer is challenging whether the state proves she caused the deaths at all. And he may be preserving both arguments, both insufficient proof, and, if there is a retrial, lack of criminal responsibility. And this could all matter if psychosis comes up again, because a new jury could consider and discuss psychosis evidence admitted in the first trial. And if jurors rely on information from the first trial or media coverage or anything that wasn't actually admitted in the second trial, the defense could argue that outside information tainted deliberations and seek yet another mistrial. So, you know, a lot of this is, a lot more difficult when you have a case that is so prominent for so long. I mean, this. The. The first trial lasted over a month, and, of course, has been the subject of a lot of news Articles.

Motions Filed: Gag Order Request, Juror Investigation, and Judgment of Acquittal Challenges

And so, a new hearing or another hearing was set for November 2 on a number of motions, including the prosecutor filing a request for a gag order against the defense attorney, because they are essentially accusing the defense attorney, Reddington, of doxing and intimidating the lone holdout juror, which I think is actually fair. and then there's also a request from the defense to investigate the holdout juror and a motion, for a judgment of acquittal, basically dismissing the case on the grounds that the first mistrial shouldn't have happened. So a lot going on here, and, you know, this isn't unprecedented, that there are myriad legal issues. This happens in every case, pretty much, unless there's some kind of resolution and negotiation for a plea agreement, which may happen ultimately in this case, the prosecution may decide, better to have Clancy at a mental institution for, you know, set number of years, rather than risk going to trial again and having, a verdict of not criminally responsible. And what that may do to the larger, picture overall. Even though their obligation, of course, is the interests of justice in this case and justice for the three victims, those. Those three little children. But they also have to be cognizant that this was 11 to 1. And, in the state of Massachusetts, it's going to be really hard, to get a jury. Not only that is unbiased, but also that may have a different, perspective on this, not criminally responsible issue.

Lone Holdout Juror Breaks Silence, Expresses Gratitude and Focus on Victims

And meanwhile, the lone holdout juror has broken his silence. He had been speaking just through his attorney, but he sent a video, actually, to Fox News that was aired on Hannity, just this week. And we cut that video. this again. You know, it aired originally on Hannity, but this is the loan juror statement that he provided. This cut three.

Michael Desronvil: Hi. My name is Micah Peggy Desranville, also known as the loan juror. I know the whole focus has been on me, but we want to reel everything back and put the focus on the three angels that's at hand. The ones that can't speak for themselves, the ones that can't defend themselves, and the one that can't fight the battles. And those are, Cora, Dawson and Callan. A little bit about me. I want to thank God for my Catholic faith. I want to thank God for blessing me with the ability to love my daughter. And I'm, Foremost, I would like to thank everyone, every individual that has supported me throughout this difficult situation.

Legal Expert Analyzes Complex Massachusetts Law, Unusual Jury Deliberation Transparency and Misconduct Claims

Your prayers, your emotional support, your psychological support is a tremendous to my Heart that I feel, that I sense that I know I do want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. Thank you.

Jenna Ellis: Wow. Well, let's, welcome in Ron Coleman, who is an attorney and also the host of the Coleman Nation podcast. And, Ron, so many issues to break down here, but first, let's go to just the legal issues, the motions from both sides. And, you know, even before we discuss whether or not there will be a second trial, what do you make of these motions and the, likely outcome?

ROn Coleman: Good morning, Jenna. My understanding is that this is a heck of a complicated legal, environment here. There's a lot of different Massachusetts law going in a lot of different directions here. It's really, really unusual, as you know, for the public or even the court and the parties to have as detailed a window into what happened in a jury deliberation as we're getting here. It's also extremely unusual to have accusations of juror misconduct at this level of detail that also.

Defense Argues Against Mistrial, Seeks Juror Investigation Amidst Concerns of Inappropriate Scrutiny

That A, B at all and a at all, and B, that also correspond with the extent, or, correspond with the votes in the jury to acquit or to, Not to acquit, actually, but to define the lack of criminal responsibility. So it's. There are a lot of contradictory Massachusetts legal issues here that are going to definitely end up getting decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I think it may be a while before we get through the, intermediate appellate process. So I don't think we should expect a retrial anytime soon. but with that, I mean, basically what Reddington is arguing on behalf of the defense is that, there should never have been a mistrial to begin with, and he's wanting an investigation into this, lone juror, which is, to me, you know, wildly inappropriate, because unless there is some credible, allegation of juror misconduct, like, you, know, receiving outside information or, you know, otherwise, breaking the law, the. The province of the jury to determine the facts and to, apply those facts to the law is pretty solid. And you shouldn't be able to go back as the defense and second guess what is in a juror's contemplation simply because you didn't like the outcome or because it was one against 11. that's why we have the unanimity requirement. And it's. It's not like we should be able to say, okay, well, there was just this one juror, so clearly he probably had, you know, some, bad thinking because he didn't Go along with the other 11. We don't contemplate things like that. And this is why the trial judge, even refused to remove the juror, contemporaneously, with Reddington's request.

Constitutional Claims and Legal Arguments Surrounding Juror Incapacity and Defense Attorney Ethics

And so do you think that there will be any merit to his, his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal and essentially undermining the calls that the judge made at the time?

ROn Coleman: Janet, you really put your finger on a couple of the issues that, from what my research tells me, are the issues here. as, usual, your legal analytical talents are not sufficiently appreciated. There is a plausible constitutional claim here, and a lot of it has to do with what exactly was in front of Judge Kennedy when he made key decisions. As you point out, the plausible constitutional claim is not 11 jurors wanted to quit and wanted to acquit, so she can't be retried. That's preposterous. But there is a. There is an argument under Massachusetts law, which is that before terminating what's called jeopardy, the court was presented with a concrete claim that a juror was incapable of lawfully doing his job. And Massachusetts law supplies it, is a. An available mechanism to investigate it, discharge it, or use the alternative and continue. And court didn't do that. So, therefore, the commonwealth jeopardy attached. And, the commonwealth no longer has any options left. And therefore, there's no longer what, they call a manifest necessity to subject Clancy to a second trial. But the response to that is exactly what both of us just said, which is that if the allegations of misconduct merely echo the frustration of the 11 jurors with the one holdout, that doesn't cut it. Because what we're really seeing is that they want to punish him, and they want to frustrate his ability to act conscientiously as a juror, much less in accordance with his religious beliefs, which everyone in the jury room is acting in accordance with, you know, that is. That isn't going to cut it. So it's, you know. And now add to this, Janet, the fact that Reddington. I mean, I guess on the one hand, it is clear why he gets the big bucks.

Zealous Advocacy vs. Ethical Boundaries: Defense Attorney's Actions and Potential Consequences Examined

He was obviously very effective, and, you know, he got about as good of. Almost as good of a result, and he's pushing on the door of an even better result than anybody could have dreamed under these facts. on the other hand, he has arguably overplayed his hat, and people are asking very, very serious questions about his ethics. And it's not impossible to conceive of A scenario where he gets removed from the case.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I mean, which is so interesting in and of itself because then the, notion of zealous advocacy comes into play. And where is that line between zealous advocacy versus crossing that line and perhaps, you know, intimidating, doxing, harassing a juror, or, you know, going well beyond what he should. And this is why the prosecution, of course, is asking for that gag order. M. How likely do you think it is that, there may be potential bar complaints or even to go further and actually have him removed? I mean, that seems like a pretty, unlikely event that he would actually be removed, in my opinion. But, you know, we've. This whole. This whole case has been kind, of unprecedented from. From the beginning.

ROn Coleman: You're 100% right. It would be unprecedented. I'm not saying it would be inappropriate, but the Massachusetts courts stopped being appropriate a long time ago, there. I don't believe that they have the spine to go uphill against the political and largely feminist driven narrative that Clancy is a victim here. So I don't think they're going to hold Reddington to the sort of standards that he really ought to be held to.

Trial Record's Significance: Motions and Appeals Hinge on Judge's Decisions and Juror Deliberative Privilege

In fact, I think it was pretty obvious during the course of the trial that the judge wasn't going to do that. But is it. You know, it's going to be that record of trial that's really going to be very significant here, because the motions and the. And the appeals that are going to take place are going to rise or fall on what the judge, Judge Solita was actually told before he declared the mistrial. How, specific those allegations were, whether an investigation could have been conducted without invading what the jury's. What's called deliberative privilege. Really, really problematic. And I say this as someone who has never tried a criminal case. So I'm not saying I would have done a better job because I'm not a. But then again, I'm not a judge.

Courtroom Control and Case Management: Comparison to O.J. Simpson Trial and Impact of Televised Proceedings

It doesn't strike me, from the excerpts that I saw of the trial, that this judge did a good job of controlling his courtroom. And in a case like this, that's. I don't want to say that's the real crime because children were murdered here. So that's the real crime. I think it was the murders. but it is all. It's criminal and, you know, people are human. And I don't think he did as bad of a job as Lance Ito did in the O.J. case. But when you have a case that becomes politicized and media ized the way both of those two cases were. And I want to point out something both those cases have in common. one of the things they have in common is they were. They both involved judges who I think did not do a good job of managing the conduct of the, you know, of the trial. And the second one is they were both televised. And I think it is really a mistake. And you, you know, you and I, both know people who are very big advocates of courts, cameras and courts. And there's a lot to be said for it, because people probably in some respect are better educated about how the justice system works because of televised trials than they otherwise would be. But there's no question in my mind that trial, the trial process is distorted by being televised.

Televised Trials: Public Interest vs. Overriding Public Concern, Cameras in Court Debated

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and I fully agree with that, especially with a case that maybe it piques the public interest, but there's not an overriding, actual public interest concern in the same way, for example, that there might be in the Charlie Kirk case. Like, that's one where I think that cameras belong in the courtroom because of the nature of how public, the assassination was, how many people, personally knew, Charlie. And it's a much bigger. I mean, he was a public figure. And also because there have been so many, wild allegations about the evidence or lack thereof and all of that, that, hopefully having cameras in the courtroom, if and when that goes to trial, will set the record straight. But, we don't have any of those, facts or those problems in the Lindsey Clancy trial. It's simply public interest. And, you know, a lot of these people that are activists for totally other reasons, including, by the way, a number of the female jurors, who, in my opinion, went well beyond their role, and that needed to be and should be a part of the prosecution's response is to say, listen, you know, if anybody actually violated their responsibility as a juror, it's these, these women who are now going on interviews saying, you know, this is for the greater, greater public good, essentially, and we need to have more of a spotlight on health care issues. I mean, that's not what they were there to determine. They're not policymakers. So, you know, all of this, isn't the same situation in the Lindsey Clancy case. And just because people are interested in it doesn't, mean that cameras need to be there. Reporters, you know. Sure. I mean, courts generally are open, you know, to the public if you want to actually come and sit there yourself.

Finding an Unbiased Jury: Challenges in a Highly Publicized Case and Setting Aside Pre-formed Opinions

ROn Coleman: But.

Jenna Ellis: But, But I agree with you. And so that raises the question though, can there actually be a 12 people in Massachusetts or you know, even if the, the venue were changed to a totally different state, I mean this is so national now. Is there a possibility of finding 12 jurors not who you know, for listeners, it's not that they have to have never heard of the case or have formed no opinions about it. it's whether or not they can set aside what they may have heard, set aside their bias and listen to just the facts as presented in that trial. And of course, both sides, both, both attorneys on both sides would be taking, and the court would be taking their word that they can as jurors. But can you even find 12 people? Because I mean if I were asked to be a juror, I don't think I could set aside my biases. I would say, you know, it would, I would already come in having a conclusion based on what I already saw in the first trial.

The Untainted Jury Concept: Examining Bias, Prejudice, and the Illusion of Impartiality in Modern Trials

ROn Coleman: I think it's fair to say that the entire concept of an untainted jury in the 21st century is a joke. M. We have to, we have to re examine that and ask ourselves what, what do we really mean? You know quite well that there was none of the J6 defendants who were tried by a jury was given the opportunity to have their cases, you know, decided by an unbiased or untainted jury, much less unbiased and unchained judges. I'm usually railing about judges. Most cases don't make the news. And jury prejudice, jury, you know, taint M. Is not a big deal, but when you have these highly publicized juries, I don't know what the solution is. You're right. I don't think you could move it to even the most western part of Massachusetts. The most traditional, the most traditional conservative, you know, unaffected by the groupthink of this, you know, policymaking kind of concept that these jurors had. They're all sitting around listening to the same self help crap. I mean that's not even a jury taint with, with respect to this particular case. It's, it's just a problem with American culture. Right. The only. But you know, I do think it's fair to say the only thing worse than the jury system would be not having the jury system because judges are.

Lawfare and Jury Bias: The Unfairness of Political Activism in the Justice System

Have the capacity for tyranny that you know, people really don't appreciate.

Jenna Ellis: You know, and that's such a great point because even in my experience, and you know, there's there's still so much, about all of the lawfare that hasn't, come out in the public. But, you know, one of the things, that. That I found, you know, really unfair beyond all of the lawfare, in Fulton county, was how many of the potential jurors that were actually surveyed by several of, my co defendants who actually did a mock trial, ahead of their own pleas, in that case, and found that a lot of the actual, you know, surveying the population called in, you know, potential jurors from that county literally said, I don't know, I don't care. And I'm paraphrasing, but, you know, this is basically what they found. I don't care what the facts would show. these people worked for Trump, I hate Trump, and so I would find them guilty. And, you know, that's. That's just the reality, right, in a lot of these, In a lot of these counties, that there's that much bias. That's.

ROn Coleman: That is the truth. And judges are supposed to deal with that in Voir Deer, with, you know, the interview of the jury that takes place before, before the jury's in panel. They don't do it. They. They don't do it effectively. They, they don't care because the judges agree, or too many of the judges agree. You know, I mean, again, it almost always ends up being the case. When we talk about a case, Jenna, you know, the problem isn't the case, and it's not the lawyers or the jury. The problem is the culture.

Re-evaluating the Jury System: Addressing Cultural Influences and the Need for Justice System Reform

Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And so, you know, that raises the question then, and I think, this case broadly, you know, has raised a number of issues that are paramount about society, about the justice system, well outside the facts of this particular case. But one of them that I've wondered is, whether we need to possibly consider as a society that the system of a jury of your peers, I mean, this looks nothing like what the founders actually intended. let's be clear about that. But it just. It simply doesn't work in a lot of instances. And while we may still have the best system of justice compared to, you know, other countries, is this really the best system that we could have? And I think there is a public policy argument, to be made here and, to really ask ourselves, do we have such a culture of activists, of, you know, frankly, you know, people who are educated solely through social media and through media reports, and, you know, are motivated otherwise, who have, you know, political attachments over being able to actually do their job as jurors and, and do we need to perhaps, modify the process in some ways? That obviously would have to be constitutional, but also that would serve the best interests of justice. Both, you know, justice both for the victims and also due process for defendants.

Political Manipulation of the Justice System: From George Soros to Judicial Activism and Unchecked Lawfare

ROn Coleman: Well, what somebody figured out, they figured it out a while ago was that the judicial branch, the justice system, is as amenable to manipulation by political activism as all the other branches. George Soros really kicked up that aspect of social, revolution, in a big way in the last 20 or 30 years. Then again, it goes back to the Chicago 7 trial, you know, when I was a little kid and well before you were born, the left learned how to corrupt the judicial system. And, you know, one of the things that you'll frequently see people say and hear people say is the lawyers are responsible for this. The lawyers are responsible for that. And there are a lot of lawyers who are responsible for a lot of things. But lawyers are obligated to, I don't have to remind you of this, to advocate for their, for their clients, even sometimes taking positions that push the line. It is the judges who allow crazy theories and crazy, ways of conducting lawfare, which is what we call it now. I mean, look, look at the crap that Abbey Lowell has been allowed to get away with and normizing in the lawfare area. Stuff that people have been disbarred for. and, sued for civilly. Like what happened to Rudy Giuliani. incredible. Far out, meritless judicial advocacy. And the courts let it happen. And that includes, you know, the courts of appeal. I mean, this judge in, you know, speaking of Massachusetts, in Boston, who simply hurt as sees her job as just instituting as many possible rewordings of enjoining Donald Trump from being President of the United States and executing, policy and she's never reassigned. There's no kind of judicial discipline or complaint process whatsoever.

Politicization of Justice: Undermining Due Process, Professionalism, and Fair Trial Principles

System doesn't work. And the irony is that, you know, Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts, who has let so much happen and who has gone along with so many bad legal decisions in order to preserve the neutral patent of the court and to prevent it from being accused of politicization, has actually done the exact opposite.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And, you know, there's so much more we could talk about here. but we've got to, we've got to end, this broadcast here. But Ron Coleman, I so appreciate, your thoughts on this. And I hope that, you know, we really do, as a society contemplate the fact that the judicial process, from judges to to the lawyers, in some instances the lawfare to the bar associations, you know, all of this has been so heavily politicized in a way that has completely undermined the constitutional intentions of due process, of the profession of lawyering, of the jury process, of you know, what it means to be advocating in the interests of justice, what it means to get a fair trial. I mean, all of these things. And I think we can, point to the Lindsey Clancy case as not just, an example of some of, these facts that are just horribly terrible and a, cultural commentary, but also use a lot of these legal filings and issues, to take a harder policy look at, exactly what our justice system should look like in America and perhaps some reforms that conservatives want to start pushing for. So, Ron Coleman, again, really appreciate it. He's the host of the Coleman Nation podcast. You can follow him on X at your own peril and as you should, because, he is witty and snarky over there and really always appreciate his insights and, yes, incisive commentary. So thanks so much, Ron. We'll talk to you soon. And as always, if you have a topic, have questions, that you'd like us to address here on demand, or guests that you'd like to hear from, you can reach me and my team, Jenna fr.net and I will see you next week on demand.