What Lindsay Clancy's Jury Did After Being Secretly Filmed

0:00This is the Big Breakdown. A long look back at some of the biggest stories we're covering for you at the Hidden Killers podcast and True Crime Today. This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Rusky and Robin Dree. Here we are, the Lindsay Clancy trial as of our recording here. We're still with a jury that has not come back with anything very likely going to be hung. We're going to kind of tackle the conversation from that direction, but again, anything is possible here, but reading the tea leaves, the Lindsay Clancy trial is asking the hardest question and criminal law can a mother who killed her three children be held responsible when her own brain was the weapon used against her. Six weeks of testimony, more than 80 witnesses, psychiatric experts who looked at the same woman and some came to opposite conclusions. Now, after days in deliberations, 12 people have sent notes to judge Sullivan indicating

1:02they are deeply split, making a hung jury look increasingly inevitable. Joining us today, Eric Fattis, defense attorney, former prosecutor to talk about what a potential hung jury would mean for Lindsay Clancy, whether this case we get tried again and what it tells us when the system built to deliver justice stands on the brink and delivering no answer at all along with me as always. My co-host Robin Drake, retired FBI special agent, chief of the counter intelligence behavioral analysis program. Eric, the jury has 80 plus witnesses, or they've heard from 80 plus witnesses, 300 exhibits, days in that room, and they've already sent no saying they're struggling to reach a consensus. The judges now read them. The two-read Rod Regis charge is basically tells them no future jury is going to have better evidence than they do and they still appear very deadlocked. I'm not honestly shocked by this. I think a lot of people have said this is going to be probably where it goes, considering

2:04the the ether and the the the the the temperature in the room outside. It's a good gauge of what a jury room is going to look like, but they didn't have access to social media. They didn't have the the conspiracies running wild. In their heads every day like we have, are you surprised at all? What's your thoughts that we're sitting here with what looks like is going to be a hung jury? I'm sorry. God's not a huge shocker to me, Tony. In part because of how polarizing this case has been, you know, when we talk with our family, we talk with our friends, colleagues about the case. There's not a middle ground. It's usually people are on the extremes of one side or the other. So the jury is kind of a microcosm for for society at large. And so those that polarization may be going on back there. Folks have probably dug in their heels at this point in this in this stage of the deliberations. And I think it's reasonably unlikely that they're going to change their positions.

3:06However, I have seen it before. Eric, with that, you know, I'm just running my own thought experiments because I mean, we're all right on this one. This has been the most polarizing case we've ever covered and it's pretty profound about how, like you said, dug in people are on this. I can't imagine, especially with the coverage that's going on, you know, the jury's supposed to sequester themselves and not pay attention. Hard to imagine they have, but in any event, so say it goes to retrial and they try to sit another jury. It's hard to imagine a scenario where it doesn't happen again. So in my mind, and this is my question to you, is do you think they're going to press more for some sort of plea deal to avoid what they probably see as inevitable? And not just in this case, but is that generally what happens in cases where it gets this kind of severe notoriety or maybe this is a landmark case for just because it's risen to this level? Robin, it's not uncommon at all for the attorneys even during trial, even during deliberations to be thinking about, hey, is there some sort of resolution that we might be able to come to?

4:10Because both sides have tremendous exposure. If Lindsay Clancy is convicted, she goes to prison probably for the rest of her life. If the prosecution loses, that's a tremendous black eye when you have three dead kids and you didn't do a great job. And so could both sides sort of come to the table and be like, hey, is there a way that we can sort of both get out of this relatively unscathed with some plea to a lesser whatever? Those discussions happen frequently during trial and even during deliberations. Are you seeing any sort of leakage from either side of what you think either side would agree to? Again, I know it's pure conjecture. You're an armchair, a quarterback sitting back in this, but I'm just curious about, what would either side see as a compromise when do you think from that point of view? It's a little hard to say, the defense lodged what's called a lesser non-included charge that they required the court or the court required, the charge to be added of manslaughter. That's less than first-screen murder, it's less than second-degree murder, still carries significant prison time, but something that would give Lindsay Clancy a lot of life

5:14on the outside after this. And so that's a possibility. Let's talk about those possibilities and logistically what that looks like. If they come back deadlocked here, and just so we can have it on the record of understanding where their options are in this moment in time, is there are there any roads, I should say, of which the jury can travel being deadlocked, where this doesn't then get drug out through more hearings and a bench trial where both sides are able to come to the table relatively quickly. And have some sort of settlement agreed to as to the outcome of this, or does a deadlocked jury in this case mean, okay, we may get to some other resolution, but it means either a bench trial, new hearings that are going to further extend this month's possibly years down the road.

6:14Or is there something where in the container of this current trial and situation, even with a deadlock jury, both sides with the judge are able to come to some sort of a resolution. Does that exist? It could potentially exist. So the jury right now is deadlocked. If the judge determines that there's a hung jury, meaning they're not going to reach unanimous citizen, that's a mistrial. What that means is the prosecution can seek to set a new trial date and we can start all over again. Now in the dependency of that new trial during that year, certainly if I'm defense, I'm going to the prosecutor and I'm saying, hey, look, you guys gave it your best shot. You guys had 80 witnesses. You had hundreds of exhibits this last two weeks and weeks and weeks. You gave it your best shot. You guys tried hard, but you couldn't convince a jury. There is no indication that you're going to get a different outcome if we do this again. So how about having her plead to something? And those discussions can take place while the district attorney is deciding how they might want to react next

7:18if there is a hung jury. Yeah. Do you see if they were to retry it as the prosecutors are thinking about retrying it? I mean, literally what difference could they do differently because their new testimony they could bring in? I can't imagine new experts because again, part of the argument against the prosecution was the time removed from the interviews of Lindsay to the actual crime itself of killing her kids. And if they brought in more, there'd be even more time removed from there. So it's not like they're going to bring in new experts that have more depth of field necessarily because again, experts seem to cancel each other out. The people standing with Lindsay saying that yes, this is a break from who she was. I don't see that shifting majorly in any way. So I guess unless, I mean, what other new road could they go down would be attacking the investigation as we've seen so many of the wonderful people in the TikTok verse saying that they did a horrendous job of, I mean, literally what more could they do than they've already done? That's the thing, Robin, is basically speaking the facts are the facts. Now they could try to do some additional

8:19investigation. They could try to find additional ways to attack the credibility of defense experts and things like that. But by and large, the evidence isn't changing. It's just what it is. And so, you know, there's not going to be some kind of rabbit they can pull out of their hat during the second trial that I think would substantially change things. I just don't I can't see that. And one more question on that. And again, illegal side, I don't know nearly as well as you, obviously. So say the prosecutors want to retry it because those two seem like, er, you know, I want her no matter what. Can the judges side where they get to retry it? And I'm like, who makes that final decision on how to move forward with this case? That that shows how much power a prosecutor can have that the decision whether to seek a second trial after a hunk jury is really solely within the discretion of the prosecutor. And if the prosecutor wanted to move forward, the judge would not have the legal authority to be like, I don't think that's a good idea. And I don't like this case. I don't think you're going to win. None of those things would be

9:22in effect. And the prosecutor would have the sole decision made. Is there a limit about how many times it can retry a case? I don't know that there is is a specific number that that the law talks about. However, there are things there are legal grounds like a speedy trial. They have a speedy trial right. They have a due process right to not be to not have a harassing prosecution. And maybe after the second one, they could argue, Hey, this is just harassment at this point. This is vexatious. And so there are kind of ways to limit the number of retrails. Yeah. Thanks. Yeah. What sort of appetite does a prosecutor typically have after a case like this? We saw Karen Reed got retried and we know how that went. Also a Massachusetts case. When you have essentially the same set of facts, you're going to have essentially the same pool of people that you're going to be picking in from. So your odds of having a few holdouts here or there and ending with

10:27the same sort of jury extremely high. I mean, the appetite is got to be considered. But even beyond that because obviously they can redo it if they so have the appetite. But the defendant herself, Lindsey Clancy, she could ask for a bench trial. Could they not? And if you were reddington, having gone through this once, knowing the state of your client, do you go down that road? So a few things. My understanding is is that under Massachusetts law, if there is a first degree murder charge, that has to go to a jury. You're right. Now, if it's a lesser net now, for example, if the jury came back, not guilty on first degree murder, but hung on manslaughter or something, my understanding is that a manslaughter charge could go to only a judge. That's risky on the defense side because when you're talking about a jury, you got 12 people, you need to convince at least one of them to vote not guilty. And then you get at least a hung jury if you can

11:28solve them you win. But when you have a judge, you only have one person, not 12, who you got a hope sides with side with you. And so the judge part is a little bit more risky just in terms of the numbers game and how juries come down in terms of hung juries. A judge is never going to be, it's never going to have hung jury because it's one person. Is, would judge Sullivan be the guy that did it or would they reassign a new judge to it? Yeah, that's a good question. I'm not, I'm not entirely sure. I think it's going to stop on Eric on one. It's rare. If you most appropriate to, um, to get a second judge because the first judge would, would be privy to all of the evidence from the first trial, but the decision is going to be made on the events of first trials can be made on the events of the second trial. And there'd be a concern that the judges mind might go back to the first trial. I think they did a new judge. Yeah, that's why it's curious just because Sullivan seemed to really his, his objections. I haven't looked up the stats on it. It's mine. I got to do that one.

12:31Is, you know, for the objections that were made, where it was even more like how did he lean on his objections and how, what the he sustained and didn't sustain in the might is just curious. Yeah. It's a good thing. Um, we got, we got the answer here, everybody. Um, it's a fact it's a scummy government, MK Ultra Mind Control that made Prozac for this reason and the Mind Control Program come on people, evil CIA government. Well, I'm glad all questions have been answered. We're good. We're good. We're good. We're going forward. Yeah. You know, the brain drain I've had in the last week has just been profound. You know, we're talking about this before the show, Eric. And that is, you know, when, when you do assessments of cases and my case, human beings, it requires a massive amount of empathy, which doesn't, isn't sympathy. It's empathy to understand the viewpoint from someone else from their shoes, which is very defense, you know, defense oriented as well because you have to understand your client, you have to understand the pros, I mean, huge understanding, which means you typically,

13:35just by the nature of who you are, you listen to all these really, really stupid things that try to figure out where they're coming from. And so it just occupies massive brain space. I just got to shut this shit down. It's killing me. Yeah. It is. I mean, it's been a mental workout on this case. One more in this lane before we talk about the, uh, the craze person who showed up with the camera. Um, if you're, if you're a mother watching every day of this looking for an answer, and this means a lot to a lot of people, um, what are you supposed to take away if the jury walks out without a verdict here? I mean, there's, there's so much that, that seems to be writing on, on the verdict here in terms of understanding of, of mental health, of women in postpartum situations. Um, I mean, is this, uh, is this really more so not necessarily an indictment of the medical system, but of our society and an understanding of, of this sort of world, um,

14:35if we're able to, if we're not able to come back with an answer either way. Goss, you know, one thing I, I could say, uh, for sure, in my opinion, is that, um, you would see more of these types of defenses, especially with mother, mothers who may have been going through a postpartum process, and we're leds to commit a crime, especially if it's killing their children. You are going to see this type of defense much more regularly, and you're going to see experts popping up, uh, who support this, this kind of a defense. And so I think from, from a legalistic standpoint, uh, we, we can sort of pin down what that effect might look like from a societal or, or moral standpoint. Goss, that one is, is it, that's a big question. That is tough to tackle. Uh, I don't know, you know, if three, the mom kills, there are three kids, should they be able to get off, you know, uh, some sort of hospitalization, I, you know, it's a hard, but, and it's only in the state too, because so many, most of the states aren't as, I mean, the education on what the laws are

15:38when it comes to not guilty by reason of sanity or not criminally, uh, responsible, there's huge differences between states massive. I mean, this, if this had happened in one of the four that don't even have this as a possibility of defense, then we, when are you talking about this? And so that's what it's also pretty interesting about this and, and, and where this, where this occurred. And it's, it's just, I feel like it's a, it's a false compare. I've seen so many, I just did a monologue about this this morning is the another Lindsey Clancy. We, I keep saying that in headlines. When, when there's basically a mother and dead children, the headline becomes, it's another Lindsey Clancy. And I think that's so insanely disingenuous because it's not, this is such a unique case. The postpartum psychosis is statistically is a rare thing. I do wonder if it is more prevalent than we actually know statistically. Um, but when we had, what was it? Andrea Gates. Is that the one from way back that a lot of the comparisons going on here? People like, well, Lindsey Clancy is going to make all these women run and, and, and claim this. We didn't see a giant, giant uptake,

16:43uptick after Andrea Gates. No, it's not. That didn't change the landscape. Neither is this going to change the landscape. And when everyone keeps jumping on to this, oh, it, this is going to start the precedent of more mothers doing this. No, it's not. I mean, we, everybody's saying it's another Lindsey Clancy, just as they did for the last 20 years and other Andrea Gates. And you look at the case details and it's like, no, these are really nothing. And here's why it won't be and hasn't been before. And that's why this one's so unique. So let's, again, we always say a lot of people say anyway that the experts cancel themselves out, even though they agree in a lot of areas with her mental health issues, um, just their definitions of what the individual psychologists are saying was criminal responsible is their own context from the laws in their own states as well. So that's why it's a little bit of movement. But they all agreed on a lot of things, not all of them on the, on the postpartum psychotic spot of it, but all the mental health issues. Yes. And so here's what's extremely unique in this case. It's removed the doctors and their opinions and their

17:47and their analysis and all that. The huge difference is her and her family, the support network around her that gets all the other data points for the jury to use in their deliberation. In other words, all these other cases where people is going to be a lot more Lindsey Clancy's. Really? Have you seen this many people on any other case that stood by the defendant that actually were part of the family that lost their kids and said, we stand by her. She's not, it's this wasn't in her right mind. There's something wrong here. Co-workers, family, loved ones, ex-husbands, all of them are saying the exact same thing. That's what makes this one extremely unique because ask, do your own thought experiment. If some, if you come from, if you're one of these rare people comes from a very, very healthy family. It's my wife said to me the other day. If you had done this to our kids, there's no way in living hell, I would have thought that was you. Something had to be going wrong in your life. Some psychotic break or something because that is not you. So that's what makes this one unique. Yeah. I agree. Your thoughts in the comments section on

18:50sub-stack and YouTube is we continue to break down the Lindsey Clancy trial. And Todd, I know you're watching the background. If we have anything that breaks during this, let us know. I know that jury is still loud as of right now, but if we need to jump into anything we can. Ta-da! In game show, fashion the response. Want more on this case and others? Then press subscribe now and don't miss a moment of true crime coverage from Tony Brusky and the Hidden Killers podcast. This is Hidden Tillers Live with Tony Brusky and Robin Dree. The Lindsey Clancy trial continues to be one of the most heartbreaking and emotionally exhausting cases we've ever covered. Right now, we're watching a jury struggle in real time dead locked after days of deliberation. By the time you're watching this, we very likely will have an answer and that answer may be a hung jury. Trying to untangle the devastating reality of

19:52postpartum psychosis versus premeditated murder. Renaissance stakes inside the courtroom, if they weren't high enough, the circus outside just breached the perimeter of 56-year-old woman was arrested outside the Plymouth courthouse this week, accused of secretly filming the jurors as they left. She told reporters she just wanted to see Lindsey. But police found deleted videos of the jury on her phone. Eric Fattis is with us, defense attorney, former prosecutor to help us discuss this along with Robin Drake, retired FBI special agency for the counterintelligence behavioral analysis program. It's a madhouse. I don't know another way to put it. Every time we see the coverage outside of a trial these days, it reminds me of my days working in radio outside of a concert where you'd have your tent outside and sometimes you'd have a promotion going, come by, when a t-shirt, it feels like that. And that's weird to me when you're talking about three dead kids

20:57and this atmosphere. But it is what it is. I mean, we can criticize it all day. People are very up in arms about this. They're passionate. Passions not a bad thing, but when it gets misdirected, when it gets crazed, when it gets dangerous, when it gets exposure to your people who are just trying to do their jobs like jurors showing up for their duty, being filmed. It gets a little scary. The immediate threat, the deadlock, Eric, the story was already struggling towards the potential deadlock and feeling the immense weight of this case before this one was arrested and the parking lot. The judge actually had to question them one by one about before they could resume deliberations. Practically speaking, I mean, how does an outside disruption like that push and already fragile, exhausted jury towards a decision of some sort. And I mean, we'll get to the fall out of what that could possibly mean, depending on what that decision is. But how do you react to that as either a prosecutor or a defense attorney when something like this occurs?

22:02Sure. So there are a number of issues of play one is possible juror intimidation. Another is a juror's perception that someone might be intimidating them, even if that wasn't the original intent. Look, these jurors, it's such a high stakes case. We have three dead children and they've got a horribly difficult decision to make. They didn't sign up for this. And they want to keep their identities anonymous because think about the backlash that could come from their decision. Anyway, there's extremists on both sides who could lodge threats and God knows what. And so I think it's a significant intrusion into the integrity of the jury system. And I worry that these jurors might be concerned for their own safety. Who's going to out me? Who's going to post a video of me online? And then if I let this lady off, is somebody going to come to my door and not be too happy about that? Those are some very real concerns. And I think they also give rise to a possible appellate ground if there is good. Yeah, that's what I'm wondering about. I mean, the judge

23:05immediately asked them all, pulled them all, basically, you know, said, did this, this woman's, did she affect you in any way, shape, or form? I mean, basically a line of questioning was done and swore them all back in after the event. They all have answered that are back in the jury room. No, we're good. That's lovely and all, but does that make a damn bit of difference? Should whatever verdict comes out here? I mean, let's let's let's place some scenarios. Let's play this scenario. They find her guilty. Let's say they find her guilty and three weeks later, two weeks later, a day later, whatever. Sometime later, one of those jurors does an interview with somebody and something comes out of their mouth to the effect of, yeah, I voted for that because I was afraid for my safety. And for whatever reason that that, they've thought that decision would actually keep them as safe as they could. It may not be what they fully believe, but they were pressured into it because of that action. Wasn't another juror? Wasn't Becky Hill going to another

24:10pre-sinct and then weighing in? It was this event. And even though they told the judge, I'm okay. I really did feel this way. What does that do to a verdict, even though it's already rendered and they're sworn in? I think that is likely an automatic reversal. The jurors cannot base their determination on any information or force or dynamic outside of what happened when the evidence was presented within that courtroom. And so if they felt some kind of pressure and that contributed even to a very slight degree in their final determination. And even if they said before, under pressure when you're being basically interrogated by a judge in this very serious case, and they said, no, I'm fine. That doesn't necessarily alleviate the potential appellate concerns if there is a conviction and a juror did feel pressure. And that's a very real concern in this case. Those jurors in the back think about how I promote this. It can be like a work meeting when you

25:14have like 30 minutes of your trying to come to a decision. These people have been doing it for days and days and days. And that pressure is very high as it is. Do you think it was, I know logistically, as challenging, especially for three to five weeks of your life? Should they have been sequestered during this? You know, sequestration, I think there's been a trend away from that. It's so burdensome for the jurors who again, didn't sign up for this. They're just doing their civic duty. And to put them in a hotel where they can't typically can't have much contact with family friends, work, things like that. I think that that is a bit overkill. And I think that the risks and costs of that process probably outweigh the benefits in my mind. What is the bar of these? Because you don't see it that often these days. Sequestration, whether in the hotel like that. And if people don't understand what that means, it means you're not going home. You're not hanging out with your friends and your family. You're not watching. They're really, really making sure you're not getting access to this. And that's what the bar that's keeping it is control. What is the bar though these days?

26:20What kind of case is what does it take to qualify for a sequester jury? You know, the judge has a ton of discretion there. So the judge is kind of the steward of the jury. The judge has to look out for the jury and also has to make sure they're not being improperly influenced. And so usually that threshold is just sort of the judge's subjective opinion in terms of is there a risk that outside information and influence could creep in to this jury this jury process during this trial? Is that risk high enough to justify the burdens of sequestration? And I think judges are trending away from that. And I really haven't I can't recall the last time I've actually seen a judge decide, hey, yes, we need to sequester for this entire trial. And so that just goes to shows how difficult it is to obtain that. Unless you're in the reality show, jury duty, that's on. That's true. There you go. There's a question. That was a good one. I want to go back to the, you know, what if scenario here? Okay, so we talked about if a juror

27:26comes back on somebody's podcast and says I felt pressured and this is why I voted this way or that way. But more so, I mean, it would be more effectual if it was I voted guilty. What happens here though, if no jurors has anything at all, I mean, does Reddington have a card to play regardless because of this incident? If they have to go to appeal, if they were to be in that sort of a situation. That's tougher. I think that that would be much more difficult for the defense. And usually what often happens in a case like this, if there is a guilty verdict, defense will ask to interview each one of those jurors. Thing is though, Tony, these jurors do not have to subject themselves to this to an interview with defense council or anyone. In fact, they're given an instruction at the end of this trial that basically says, hey, if you don't want to talk about this, man, you don't have to. And no one's going to force you unless there's like a hearing in your subpoena. But so you really need something from the jury. You can't just say like, oh, there

28:31was the appearance of outside influence because that lady tried to film them. That probably isn't enough. You probably need some morsel at least from a juror saying, yeah, I noticed that. And yeah, I think it did have no effect. What if, because again, going to what Reddington has in his tool bag in case it doesn't go the way he wants it to go. And you don't have a juror saying that. But since he, he, they had the mistrial request, you know, when they were invoking religion and religiosity in that, can he go back and use that as a throx that even though it was sustained and the jury was given very strict instructions by Sullivan not to listen to those words. Can he still then claim it had an impact since it was heard by the jury and use that as a grounds for appeal? You can certainly argue, but at the appellate level, there is a presumption, a legal presumption that the jurors will follow the instructions of the court. So if the court said, hey, I know you all heard this can't unring that bell, but, but you can't consider it. There's a presumption that the

29:34jury will not consider it. So you have to, as defense counsel, try to unearth some kind of contrary evidence to that that you know, they did consider it. And you know, if they're talking on a podcast later and they're talking about how significant they thought that religiosity issue was, that those kinds of things might be enough. So are jurors then after cases, especially like this one, given really clear and good instructions by the court about what they should or shouldn't do, or what they're allowed to do or not allowed to do, and is it legally binding? Do you mean before the deliberations or after the case? Like after the case is done, like we're talking out all these hypotheticals on what jurors could or potentially say either to news, podcasts, something like that, which could actually upend and flip things around or bring attention and things in other words, just on this case, on this one with, you know, invoking, what was this statement, not wrath of God or moral sin, moral sin, the mortal sin statement. You know, so are they instructed about how to conduct themselves after and is it legally binding if they are?

30:37It's it's it's in every trial I've done, not done more than 60, the the judge has a very limited instruction at the end of the jurors saying, thank you so much for your service. If you want to talk about this with somebody, you can't and if you don't, you don't have to. And if someone is is pressuring you to do something you don't want to do, like talking about the case, bring it to the judge's attention. That's pretty much it. So that's pretty broad that allows the jury kind of to, it's in their hands they could do what they want. And some jurors want to talk about it, others want to get it behind them. And jurors, I mean, in a high profile case like this, the reality is going to be there is a potential payday there for any one of them. If they like it to be, I can guarantee if you want a book deal, you'll get a book deal if you want. They're they're, I mean, it is what it is. And I don't know if there's anything necessarily wrong with that. I guess it probably depends on on how one is is using that, whether it's, you know, in a way of trying to,

31:42you know, spread a message of some sort of awareness for the greater good or just to cash in on the death of three children. There's two kind of lanes there that that could take. But the possibility is there. So we're inevitably we're going to hear from some of them. And I mean, it'll be fascinating. When we do hear from from some of them, Eric, just pure conjecture, what do you think that conversation's going to be like? What do you think we're going to hear? Really from any of them when they're describing what was going on over these however many days, roughly 30 some hours in that jury room. I can't even imagine like I go back to an example of like, let's say you at work are trying to decide on what you're going to have for lunch. And there's like three different positions and someone's like, no, I want pea sons. Like, no, that's unhealthy. Let's get Japanese or whatever. You know, that that's something that's hard to reach consensus on something

32:43as simple and trivial as that. And that could take, you know, 10 minutes or something like that. The amount of time that these jurors have been going back and forth with each other in what I'm sure is an emotionally charged environment with deeply held beliefs that implicate ideas of motherhood, of mental health, of women's health, that those are people have strong positions about those things. And I bet that many of them are are vocal about just how zealously they believe one thing or the other. And so I bet it is, you know, that's not the right. I was going to say a different word, but it's definitely a difficult, difficult scenario back there on tense, acrimonious at times I imagine. I can't have imagined the mental exhaustion there under right now. When, so the biggest energy draw in our entire bodies, believe it or not, is the brain. And when you actually keep exercise in your brain, that hard for that long, for that's the same period of time. I can imagine how emotionally and mentally exhausted these people are. I know people are putting in a common

33:46suit and we've all said it, I wouldn't I wouldn't pay anything to be on this jury. You know, at the variance, so I'd love to be part of this kind of see everything's going on. No freaking way. I really hats off to them on this one. This is a rough one to be part of because it's impacting them for rest of their lives as if we know what it would have, but also just the emotional told us is taken no doubt. Do they offer it? Actually, I don't think so, but I'll just throw it out to you anywhere. Do they offer counseling to jurors after things like this? I mean, they have seen some really horrendous things. They've been through some a lot of trauma just going through deliberations on this. I imagine much more so than if you're on a jury for a traffic stop. You know, if there is such one, obviously, probably not, but you know, there's a lot they're going through, a lot they're exposed to, you know, you're getting only a sense of it by looking at people are breaking down in the courtroom, but this is a lot for a human being to go through and this wasn't something they've even volunteered to go through. Anything offered to them as counseling or anything? Not a to my knowledge. It's not something the government would pay for. Is there a need for it?

34:48Is there a reason for it? Probably, but to my knowledge, I've never recorded. We're just kind of playing the like what if scenario game has everyone just curious, completely kind of off topic, but has anyone ever raised a claim against a state for putting them through a trial that like scarred them emotionally and they're like mental health medical. I mean, it seems like it can be a logical one for some of the shit that a jury has to endure. Oh, sure. I mean, I've never I've never heard of such a claim and I think the government would have significant protection and immunity. It's hard because it's part it's enshrined within the laws that the jurors have to do this. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I said, I mean, it would it be, I mean, a very, very different scenario, but would it be akin to almost a law enforcement officer or someone in the armed services coming back and ensuing the police department or the army?

35:51Because while they were doing their sworn duty, they encountered things that were traumatizing. You don't really see that that doesn't really exist. Is this kind of in that same vein because it is a duty as a citizen that were asked to participate in so that kind of washes the hands of whatever the government exposes you to. It's like good luck. You know, yes and no, Tony, I want them to come to mind is the Vietnam War. So so there was a lawful draft. So the law said these folks had to participate. And then some of them over there were exposed to agent orange were exposed to other not just chemicals that could in their position have a lasting physical impact. So the show piece alone, I think probably doesn't get to any sort of viable claim. But it wouldn't be unprecedented for someone who was engaging in lawful activity required by the government and who sustained an injury to then try to make a claim after that as many Vietnam

36:53that's did. And in fact, many of them were not in my mind treated fairly after that in terms of what they're exposed to. So yeah, so suing the Commonwealth, no, not in any realistic way. But counseling, yes, just for your fact to the pleasure. Massachusetts built this in in 2022. The trial court launched a first in a nation program free short term professional counseling for jurors distressed by service three hour sessions by phone or video with the dedicated counselor. If they need more, the council refers out. The judge can also offer it to people who sat in on the pool and got wrecked by void dire. I can pronounce that anymore. After all, the homicide trial several jurors from the same panel have used it. So Massachusetts does offer it. Hey, the more you know, but so after the witch trial, they cancel you for the witch trial. Yeah, it's great. They gave you some candy. It's bring your trick or treat bag and they fill it up. I said, you know, I'm glad we

37:55asked that question. Yeah, the the the true crime tourist epidemic is is we've talked about it a bit. I mean, it exists. It's going to be there. Are have the courts? Are they prepared? Do do they need to be treating the outside security parameters and what goes on when the jury goes to their car with more security and safety than they than they have? Obviously, it's very different outside a courthouse and it was in 1996 and it still seems that a lot of the, you know, the security measures in many cases are still about there. We've seen some that are are really stacked up very well. But is that something in your opinion that that could could lead or could use a little catching up to today's culture and obsession with with true crime Eric? Are you

38:55kidding me? Absolutely. I've seen some clips from outside of that courthouse where things appear to be basically pandemonium and and that is a real concern in terms of the effect it could have on the jury. It's a real concern for the safety of the proceedings and then what they got to do is up the security measures but also balance that with the folks' rights to a public trial, to free speech, to pro-to to voice their opinion outside of the courthouse. And so you have a lot of competing interests that were hard to balance for like a courthouse security team, you know? And so kind of a herculean effort with how much things have ramped up in this new era. Yeah, that would, it's scary to think about how one individual could very dramatically up end a trial. I mean, this one may have. I mean, look at what Becky Hild did with her things. This one woman outside of the courthouse just trying to take a picture. I mean, I mean, I mean, people can do far worse than a camera. And this case has such emotional vitriol connected to

40:03it. Were you surprised that a person got that close to a juror was able to take pictures of the jurors getting to and from their cars? I mean, I know it's a courthouse. It's a public building. It's not like they have secret underground tunnels and a secret passageway to load people in and out of. But I don't know, more fencing. I mean, we're several weeks in here. We do know the effect this case has been having on the country. The fact that somebody even got that close is that, I don't know, are you surprised? Yeah, I was surprised in part because I recently attended the, I guess it was last year, but the trial in Colorado for the dentist Daniel Craig, who was convicted of, of, of, of Cosmodeath's wife. And when you're sitting in the gallery, if you even bring out your phone, if you just bring it out of your pocket, security will ask you to leave. You cannot even be brandishing a phone within the vicinity of that trial. And so the fact that

41:07this person got close enough was able to have her phone. It's operational. She's taken allegedly photos and videos. That seems like a bit of a breach to me. You know, I think there can be other measures taken like, if this is a public trial, and if you want to watch it, cool man, but you can't have your phone with you like things like that. Those are reasonable restrictions that could be placed, but, but it appears had, I thought we saw that though. Didn't we see, I'm that that that's that was my question at the answer to this, you know, because I watched, I pray, I think I watched every single minute of this trial and they did a lot of panning of the gallery. I'm pretty sure I saw people with their cell phones, matter of fact, some people that come on our show. I mean, because I saw, I thought I saw like reporters, podcasts, is actually taking their notes and everything. I was really curious because I know when I've gone to court of my own county, you got to leave that crap in the car. And even writing to now, granted, I know he's, you know, one of the attorneys, but he's got his cell phone up on the on the table there with him as well. Yeah. What, you know, I guess what the hell? I mean, are they allowed not allowed? I mean, because it's like, how do you how do you control that if you're allowing one guy to have it or a

42:11multiple people to have it to not actually do a pan around? I mean, how am I experienced? It's almost like a tiered structure of allowances. So folks who have pressed credentials in the Daniel Craig trial, they were allowed to bring their laptops. They could have their phones with them. I don't believe they could take their phones out though. Whereas me, I did not have pressed credentials at that time. So I could not have my phone out. I could not have a laptop. I had to have an old school pen and paper to be taken stuff down. The attorneys themselves, they're allowed to usually keep all of their tech and there's just little concern that they're going to violate the rules. But it's kind of a tiered structure in that sense in my experience. It's almost too much of an honor system to play these days. And it feels like what used to work, people just, you know, don't chase down the jury and take their pictures. Is the strong suggestion of it is no longer working. It's scary. Your thoughts in the comment section on Substack and YouTube as we continue to discuss the Lindsay Clancy case. Want more on this case and others? Then press subscribe now and don't miss a moment of true

43:15crime coverage from Tony Briewski and the Hidden Killers podcast.