
Lindsay Clancy trial | What happened as defense stopped judge from declaring mistrial
About this episode
Get every episode summarized
Each time The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.
Email me new episodesFree for 3 shows. No card needed.
Hosts & guests
Transcript ready
52 searchable segments. Every word is indexed and playable.
Full transcript
The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential — Lindsay Clancy trial | What happened as defense stopped judge from declaring mistrial. Machine-transcribed; use the interactive transcript above to jump the player to any line.
I'm going to be able to. Glen Jones and JC Montaghan back with you for continuing coverage of the Lindsey Clancy trial. Court is back in session in Plymouth. Let's take you there now to listen in on the latest developments. It will not be able to. My, well, let me ask what is the party's position in regards to the debt question? You're on our, from the committal perspective since the two e instruction has already been given and then there was a little deliberation after that. I think that they would require a mistrial at this point. Tony Raehton, you're on my understanding is that this court has the discretion to have the jury sent back for the second time. The first time that there was a report, we did not treat it as a report of deadlock. We did not instruct them under two e, we did not give them soft two e, we didn't give them anything. We just sent them back to deliberate.
So technically we have one report of deadlock that you're on to gave the two e Rodriguez charge to. I believe under the statute as well as the, the case law of this court has the ability to send the jury back. The fact that that jury four person wrote, carry unusually it is with a heavy heart that we are unable to come to a decision. Based on the earlier questions that we have, I think that it would be a sound and a wise decision for this court to send it back under the law. Well, I would find that under case law, that Matthew's case line statutory law, the jury did not ask to be sent back, which would be a possibility if they had requested it to be sent back to them. But under the statute in the case law, I don't feel a voice but to declare this trial. Well, I like to be heard. Well, that's why I asked you before but go ahead.
I just got that first one and get to the other one. You run or I would suggest the court that as we are pretty much all familiar with under Karen Reed versus the climate wealth, the Supreme Judicial Court through Justice Judges back in February of 25 held that under rule 27 be of their Massachusetts rules of criminal procedure. The court gives a trial judge discretion to require a jury to return a verdict for charges on which they have agreed before declaring a mistrial as it relates to, and again I continue to quote judge may first require the jury to return verdicts on those charges upon which the jury can agree and directed such verdicts be received and recorded. And I quote rule 27 D also permits the judge to pull the jury when a verdict is returned and before the verdict is recorded. However, the judge is not required to accept a partial verdict before declaring a mistrial.
So I'm asking that the court would entertain a jurors as to whether or not there has been a decision on murder one, murder two, manslaughter anything like that. And if that's the case, then I certainly would argue that double jeopardy is attached and those judges cannot be prosecuted again. All right, come on. I would object to that. You're on a go into the deliberations. I think we're in a different scenario here than the read case where I believe in that case they did reach a verdict on certain charges and not on others. But I think here where we've had a jury who's been deliberating for six and a half days, who's come back on multiple occasions saying that their deadlocked who've been given to eat. I don't think anything else is required at this point other than the declaration of a mistrial, unfortunately. Over the defendant's objection. I'm going to declare a mistrial at this point. All right. We've been a jury and.
All right. Over the years, I've met people whose lives were changed forever in a single moment in my new podcast before and after. I explore what happens after that decisive moment, personal, powerful conversations with Colin Kaepernick, Jeremy Renner, Gabby Giffords and others. Join me wherever you get your podcasts. Before and after with Lester Holdt premieres Monday, September 14th, follow now to listen completely free or subscribe to Dateline Premium to unlock new episodes early.
All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right.
All right. All right. All right. All right.
All right. All right.
More episodes
More from The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential

Lindsay Clancy trial | Our extended interview with 3 jurors
The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential

Lindsay Clancy trial | 3 jurors talk about deadlocked deliberations in exclusive...
The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential

Lindsay Clancy mistrial | After defense's desperate appeal fails, what's next?
The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential

Lindsay Clancy trial | The high-stakes dispute keeping jury deliberations going
The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential