Latest / Two Ts In A Pod with Teddi Mellencamp and Tamra Judge / Legally Brunette: Lindsay Clancy & The Jurors

Transcript

Legally Brunette: Lindsay Clancy & The Jurors · Two Ts In A Pod with Teddi Mellencamp and Tamra Judge

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: Hi guys, welcome to Legally Brunette. I'll be your host today,
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: Emily Simpson and.
• 0:06
  Speaker 2: Shane.
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: Today we're just going to do a little update on
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy, just because the jurors have been just out
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: and about and speaking and talking and doing interviews and
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: all the things, so.
• 0:17
  Speaker 2: Starting their Instagram accounts.
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: Starting, yes.
• 0:19
  Speaker 2: Creating YouTube channels.
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: Building their following. What do you think about that? Do you.
• 0:23
  Speaker 2: I think it should be prohibited to some degree.
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: I kind of do too, because.
• 0:26
  Speaker 2: At least like a 30 days or something, like a
• 0:28
  Speaker 2: cooling off period.
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 0:30
  Speaker 2: You know, and then, okay... Then if you still want
• 0:32
  Speaker 2: to talk, you can talk and hopefully things have calmed
• 0:35
  Speaker 2: down and they're not just, because they're just blabbing.
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: Yeah. You know what? I feel like it takes away
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: from the integrity of the justice system, of the court,
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: of what happened. You've just got everybody. It's like everybody
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: left the jury room. There was a mistrial and then
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: now everybody went rogue and they're just out.
• 0:53
  Speaker 2: And they're all just blaming the holdout juror. Right.
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: So after the mistrial, we've got some jurors who have
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: been publicly speaking out. After roughly 40 hours of deliberations
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: over six and a half days, 11 jurors were ready
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: to find Lindsay Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity.
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: We know that's confirmed now because before, remember, we were
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: talking about the mistrial and there hadn't actually been a
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: confirmation of what the 11 to one was. We just
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: were assuming, cause they were talking about reasonable doubt that
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: they most likely were the 11. We're all heading towards
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: the not guilty by reason of insanity. Uh, but one
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: male juror refused to budge leading to a mistrial.
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: So what did the holdout juror actually say? The most
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: explosive revelation came from four person, Ronnie Carlson, uh, a
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: former teacher who said the holdout made a stunning admission
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: during deliberations. She claims that he admitted he had reasonable doubts.
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: And then I started to fill out the forms. I
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: was so excited. But then he said, but I'm still
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: not going to say that she's not guilty by reason
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: of insanity. That contradiction is what made this so frustrating
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: for the rest of the panel. He acknowledged the legal
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: standard had been met, but still refused to vote accordingly.
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: You know, I don't know. how I feel about that,
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: I guess, as far as the jurors.
• 2:16
  Speaker 2: Well, this is as far as she's recounting it. Right.
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: And this is obviously from her recollection, which I don't
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: know how accurate that is. I always said I felt
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: as if someone... like this juror could possibly talk about
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: reasonable doubt, could say, maybe I feel this way. But
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: then also the point of the deliberations over a long
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: period of time is to work through things, to have discussions,
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: to say, maybe I feel this way, but you can
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: always change your mind, right? Because what's the movie, 12
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: Angry Men? I mean, he managed to change an entire
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: 11 men. To another position.
• 2:53
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: So obviously.
• 2:55
  Speaker 2: And he didn't think that the defendant was not guilty
• 3:00
  Speaker 2: in that story. He was like, well, wait a minute,
• 3:02
  Speaker 2: let's not be so quick. Let's go over all the
• 3:05
  Speaker 2: evidence and then see. And I'm willing to say he's
• 3:08
  Speaker 2: guilty if he's guilty, but let's go over it. Let's
• 3:10
  Speaker 2: not just be so quick to get a verdict in.
• 3:13
  Speaker 2: And that was the issue. And then going over it,
• 3:17
  Speaker 2: he started to Things got exposed. People started to question more.
• 3:22
  Speaker 2: And then they kind of respected the process.
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: I guess it's for me, my takeaway is I don't
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: know if it was just like he said, oh, I
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: have reasonable doubt, but I'm not going to vote this way.
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: I don't know what the discussion really was. No one
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: was there. Well, I mean, she's recounting it, but I
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: don't know.
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: It might have been more like it's leaning towards this,
• 3:42
  Speaker 2: but I'm not like confident to commit. Yeah.
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: You know, basically, my takeaway is she's saying you can't
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: have a discussion and say anything. They just wanted to leave.
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: He said something about reasonable doubt, and they just wanted
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: to go home. They wanted it to be done, and
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: they wanted him to follow along.
• 4:01
  Speaker 2: Well, they probably wanted that outcome, their outcome, too.
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: Other jurors may have broken the law as well because
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: many of the jurors admitted to taking sentencing into consideration.
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: This was some of the things... This is why they
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: shouldn't go out and publicly start giving interviews because they...
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: I mean, they.
• 4:18
  Speaker 2: No.
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: They say things that you're just.
• 4:20
  Speaker 2: And they're tainting like the potential follow-up trial, the second trial.
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: They believe that Lindsay wouldn't receive proper medical care in prison,
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: so they wanted her in a psychiatric facility instead, leading
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: them to the not guilty by reason of insanity verdict.
• 4:35
  Speaker 2: See, that's not... That's not how it works.
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: No, because you're not supposed to take the sentencing into
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: account and your deliberations and what you're... I.
• 4:41
  Speaker 2: Think we talked about that last time too.
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: And so basically by giving these interviews and saying, well,
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: we didn't want to see her in jail because she
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: wouldn't receive the healthcare she needs. We wanted her in
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: a psychiatric facility. That's why we wanted to vote not
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: guilty by reason of insanity. They're taking the sentencing portion
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: into consideration and their deliberations, which you're not supposed to do.
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: And then they're going and doing interviews and openly admitting
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: that they're not following... No.
• 5:07
  Speaker 2: And now that you mentioned that, which I hadn't heard before,
• 5:11
  Speaker 2: one of the jurors was complaining that the holdout juror
• 5:15
  Speaker 2: wanted the instructions to be reread to them by the judge.
• 5:19
  Speaker 2: And they were annoyed by that.
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: They were.
• 5:21
  Speaker 2: Because they're like, we don't need the instructions. We want
• 5:23
  Speaker 2: her to go to a psych ward. Right.
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I saw that too. And I thought, so the
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: man's expressing that he would like to hear them again.
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: And he wants the judge to read them again. And
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: you're all annoyed by it because you don't want to
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: hear it again because you've already come to a conclusion
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: in your mind of what you want the outcome to be.
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: But you don't want to give him the space to
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: be able to listen to it again. Yeah. Three jurors
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: gave interviews publicly after the mistrial four person Ronnie Carlson
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: juror Kelly Farina, who is a chef at a senior
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: center and juror Paula Devlin, a defense contractor, all three
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: expressed deep frustration. They talked about frustration with the juror
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: and also about his behavior in the room when they
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: were deliberating. So multiple jurors on the panel were nurses,
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: and when they weighed in on the medical psychiatric evidence
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: about Clancy's postpartum condition and medication, the holdout allegedly dismissed
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: their expertise. The holdout also reportedly suggested at one point
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: that the judge reread the definition of reasonable doubt to
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: the jury and request the other jurors reject it. Well, okay,
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: that's interesting, though, because that's kind of contradictory. If they're
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: saying they have a problem with him because he didn't
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: want to listen to the other nurses who are giving
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: medical advice, but then he says, I want to listen
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: to reasonable doubt, and I want to hear the definition again,
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: and they're like, no, you can't hear it. But you
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: need to listen to these nurses. I mean, I'm just
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: saying that's contradictory. They're basically saying, please give weight to
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: these people and let them talk. But then when he
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: wants to hear the instructions again... from the judge they're saying.
• 7:00
  Speaker 2: No yeah i question these people.
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: Um what was the atmosphere in the jury room so
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: deliberations got heated enough that six alternate jurors seated outside
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: the room could hear the arguments there was name calling
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: and raised voices at the same time the jurors described
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: moments of camaraderie hugging practicing self-care to get through it
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: and the three women who have spoken out said they
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: formed genuine friendships through the experience um The three jurors
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: were critical of the prosecution's approach while finding defense attorney
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: Kevin Reddington's style more authentic and persuasive. They clearly sided
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: with the defense's framing of Clancy as a woman in
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: a severe psychiatric crisis driven by postpartum psychosis and an
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: over-medicated state.
• 7:45
  Speaker 2: You know, remember the gentleman that we interviewed, Kevin Harper?
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: Yes.
• 7:51
  Speaker 2: He went to jail for 14 years. Mm-hmm. For killing
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: his son, which he didn't do.
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: It was the junk science of the shaken baby syndrome. Remember,
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: he was playing like the airplane game.
• 8:05
  Speaker 2: But moving past that. So now we're interviewing him, getting
• 8:09
  Speaker 2: to know his story. And he had shared that one
• 8:12
  Speaker 2: of the jury members was not selected, was eliminated. Or
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: potential jury members was eliminated because she was getting teary
• 8:22
  Speaker 2: eyed and crying. And they talked to her and she had.
• 8:26
  Speaker 2: Do you remember this? She had disclosed that she couldn't
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: find him not guilty because she already has like it
• 8:34
  Speaker 2: all in her head that he's guilty, whether it's because
• 8:37
  Speaker 2: of what she heard or whatever, just based on his looks,
• 8:39
  Speaker 2: whatever it was. But she admitted it like in a
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: way of like, I can't do this because I can
• 8:45
  Speaker 2: only see guilty and that horrible situation for that child.
• 8:48
  Speaker 2: So they let her go, obviously. And then he said
• 8:51
  Speaker 2: that he thought at that point, I'm a dead man.
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: Because she was representative.
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: Because how many other people already have been convicted guilty
• 9:00
  Speaker 2: without having even started the trial? So these jury members
• 9:04
  Speaker 2: went back there, and they probably already had a conviction
• 9:09
  Speaker 2: of some sort in their head before deliberating.
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: You're saying like they probably already had come to the conclusion.
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: Or they were stuck on it. At some point, they
• 9:19
  Speaker 2: got stuck on it, and they weren't going to be swayed.
• 9:22
  Speaker 2: And they weren't going to let anyone- talk to them otherwise.
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I have respect
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: for the one jury member who was not persuaded.
• 9:38
  Speaker 2: Yeah, he went up against 11 people.
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: And you know, I feel they're doxing this man. I mean,
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: people know where he lives. They're harassing him.
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: They're identifying him without identifying him. Right.
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: And he's getting hate.
• 9:49
  Speaker 2: And they're making it like he kind of debunked And
• 9:53
  Speaker 2: bungled up the whole jury process. Right.
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: But the jury process is exactly what it is meant
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: to be. It is unanimous. in order to get a conviction.
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: It is a unanimous jury. That is the state level.
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: That is the threshold. If one member does not go
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: along because he's stuck to his convictions... you know, that's
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: what a jury is. That's what it's for. You know,
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: they act like this, like he did something wrong. He
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: stuck to what he believed in and he could not
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: be persuaded. And as far as him expressing reasonable doubt,
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: I don't know the situation with that. I wasn't there.
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: I don't know what he said. I don't know what
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: the language was. I don't know if he was just
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: going through things in his mind and talking and they
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: heard him say reasonable doubt. So they jumped on it
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: because they just wanted to go home. I don't know.
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: But at the end of the day, He was pretty
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: steadfast in not allowing 11 people to change his mind.
• 10:49
  Speaker 2: And he's not running around doing interviews trying to be popular.
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: No, he's probably hiding out somewhere.
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: He probably went back to work.
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 10:55
  Speaker 2: He's a normal dude.
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: I mean, they did find he was arrested, I believe,
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: for something, like some type of physical altercation with a
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: nephew or Of course, now they're, you know, trying to find,
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: but you know, did they do that with the 11
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: other jurors? What about them? Did they have some type
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: of criminal history or something? I don't know, but nobody's
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: looking into them. They're just looking into, you know, the
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: one holdout juror. But anyway, let's go on. The president
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: said Sunday that he will not be pardoning Lindsay Clancy.
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: It is actually a state.
• 11:25
  Speaker 2: Situation, not a federal one, which is why didn't your
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: Reddington guy know that one?
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: This is what we talked about before when he had
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: said on Good Morning America that he would ask the
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: president for a pardon.
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: It might just be a stretch just to get more
• 11:38
  Speaker 2: publicity on the case or something.
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: He acknowledged the tragedy of the case nonetheless. It's a
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: very sad situation. I certainly heard that. But look, it's
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: very sad. There is no winner there. There's no win
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: no matter what you do. There's three children that are dead.
• 11:52
  Speaker 2: You wonder if the president gets it. And he's like, what? Oh, crap.
• 11:55
  Speaker 2: This is a big case. You don't know which way
• 11:57
  Speaker 2: to go. Yeah. And he's like, oh, wait. It's a
• 11:59
  Speaker 2: stay case? Sweet. I got an out. Yeah.
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: He's like, this has nothing to do with me. The
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: comments came after Clancy's defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, made a
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: direct public appeal to the president on Good Morning America
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: following the mistrial, asking him to consider using his influence
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: on the client's behalf. Reddington stopped short of asking for
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: a formal pardon, recognizing that there was a federal state distinction,
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: but suggested the president could still have an impact as
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: prosecutors decide whether to retry Lindsay Clancy or not. The
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: president praised Reddington as a very good attorney and expressed
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: a hope for resolution without committing to any action. I
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: hope they can work something out, he said. All right,
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: what's your take? Now, we know that Lindsay Clancy will
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: be back in court on September 29th with Reddington representing her. Again,
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: we talked about this in another episode, but this is
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: not a retrial. I've seen people posting You know, her
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: trial begins September 29th. That's not correct. It's a status hearing,
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: which I assume the prosecutors are going to come up
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: with whatever they decide to do at that point. Are
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: they going to move forward and retry her and have
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: the whole trial again? Are they going to offer a plea?
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: What's the defense going to say?
• 13:12
  Speaker 2: Will that hearing be continued?
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know. It'll be interesting to
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: see what happens, what the prosecution says. You know, on
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: one hand, the prosecution has a moral... I mean, a
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: moral obligation to represent the three children. Yeah. For them
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: to just not retry it. Nothing.
• 13:29
  Speaker 2: That's what I said earlier. I think they got to.
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: You think they're going to retry the case?
• 13:34
  Speaker 2: Can't sweep this one under a rug.
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: There's always the option of a plea deal.
• 13:38
  Speaker 2: Well, okay.
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: Or that.
• 13:39
  Speaker 2: But it's not going to be, we're letting it go.
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I can't imagine that being.
• 13:44
  Speaker 2: I mean, I know they've done that in the past.
• 13:45
  Speaker 2: I've seen cases like that.
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: But I can't imagine the prosecution is just going to say, nevermind.
• 13:50
  Speaker 2: No.
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: She's free to go. There's no justice at that point.
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: And I don't know what justice even looks like in
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: this case.
• 13:57
  Speaker 2: And Reddington might want to agree to something because she
• 13:59
  Speaker 2: needs care.
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: She does.
• 14:01
  Speaker 2: She needs to be put somewhere.
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: Right. Exactly.
• 14:04
  Speaker 2: You know, what's he going to do? Be like, okay,
• 14:05
  Speaker 2: I got you off scot-free. Now, good luck.
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: I don't know.
• 14:09
  Speaker 2: Figuring out your life. So he might see it as, hey, okay,
• 14:14
  Speaker 2: this is a happy medium where you're going to be
• 14:17
  Speaker 2: somewhere and you'll get some treatment and you can try
• 14:20
  Speaker 2: to recover. Right. All right.
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: Well, that is an update on the Lindsay Clancy case.
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: We will obviously continue to follow what happens on September
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: 29th at the status hearing. It will be interesting to
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: see what happens with the prosecution, whether the case is
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: retried or if there's a plea deal. So thanks for
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: following us and thanks for listening. As always, please send
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: me a DM on Instagram. If you have recommendations for
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: any cases you would like us to discuss, please follow
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: Legally Brunette wherever you listen to podcasts. And if you
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: have the chance, leave a review for us too we
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: love to read those so thank you guys for listening
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: we appreciate you