Lindsay Clancy Mistrial: Reddington Weighs In

As a warning, some of this content contains graphic and disturbing details, including discussions of suicide and the killing of children. So please listen or watch with care. We'll have resources for you at the end of the episode. All right, members of the jury, at this point, I'm going to declare that the jury is deadlocked, and I'm going to declare a mistrial, all right? On Friday, September 4th, after about 36 hours of deliberation, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Lindsey Clancy. In what's known as a hung jury, the 12 jurors deliberating on this case were unable to come to a unanimous agreement on a verdict. A mistrial was initially proposed by the judge that Friday morning and was hard-fought by defense attorney Kevin Reddington. He filed an appeal for an emergency stay so he could ask the judge, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, to intervene and remove a single juror or determine whether the juror could comply with the judge's instructions. The appeal claimed that the jurors, quote, reasoning reflects a bias against those who suffer from debilitating mental illness, end quote. The prosecution and the defense were able to get on a Zoom call with the justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on the very same day. However, the appeal was denied, and the judge later announced, an official mistrial that afternoon. As those who've been following this case know, Lindsey Clancy is a Duxbury, Massachusetts mother who was on trial for the killing of her three young children, five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callen. Lindsey is paralyzed from the waist down as a result of her alleged suicide attempt that same night. Lindsey's defense lawyer doesn't dispute that Lindsey killed her three children after hearing testimony from over 80 witnesses and a number of other witnesses. And seeing over 300 exhibits of evidence, what the jury had to decide here was whether she should be held criminally responsible. The defense argued that she experienced undiagnosed postpartum psychosis that took away her ability to control her actions and therefore should be found not criminally responsible. They also argued that her condition was exacerbated by the 13 psychiatric medications she'd been prescribed. I'm CBS News correspondent Chanel Call, and this. is Case by Case. Now, I've been following this case for the network for over a month now and was actually inside the courtroom for a lot of the big key moments. For our continuing coverage, you can check the Case by Case feed wherever you find your podcasts. You can also watch episodes of Case by Case on the 48 Hours YouTube channel or by searching Case by Case on Paramount+. Joining us today is Boston WBZ-TV reporter and anchor Christina Rex, who's been reporting on this case since the day of the killings, Thank you so much for being here, Christina. Of course. Thanks for having me again. There's so much to get into and there's so much that we together experienced, saw, witnessed. You know, we were both in Plymouth for that dramatic moment back on Friday. So take us inside the courtroom. What did it feel like? How were people there reacting? It really felt like the mistrial declaration was a slow burn for the people in the courtroom except for the jurors because it had been discussed, you know, a little bit Thursday afternoon. We knew there was a hungover. We knew there was a long jury. Then Friday, the judge had said he planned to declare a mistrial before Kevin Reddington asked for a chance to appeal. So as far as, in my opinion, and I'm curious if you'll agree, as far as, you know, Lindsay Clancy's family went and people who were in the courtroom, they saw it coming. I think it was the jurors' reactions that were really notable to me. You know, there were several women on the jury who had emotional reactions to that mistrial declaration, including one woman who bent over forwards with her head in her hands when that mistrial was announced. And Christina, you know, some of the jurors from this trial have actually spoken out about what it was like and about that one juror that allegedly led to the mistrial. I know you also spoke to one of those jurors. Can you tell us a bit about that conversation? I did. I spoke to one of the female jurors in this case. You know, there were nine women and three men on this jury. And she told me that there were some really strong personalities in that deliberation room and that from the beginning of deliberations, a lot of jurors felt really, really strongly one way or another and that we know they were in there for nearly seven days. So over the course of that time, they really started talking, looking through evidence. And she even felt, she told me, going into the room, like she would be a guilty vote. And then over the course of those discussions, she started to really feel her mindset shift and started to feel the weight of what she told me she thought was her constitutional duty here. And that if she experienced reasonable doubt, she felt she had to vote not guilty by reason of insanity. Which is where she ended up in this case. And she did confirm the foreperson's note to the judge. She said there was one holdout juror who multiple times acknowledged that they were experiencing some doubt here, but refused to change their vote to reflect that doubt. And that's really where they became a hung jury. And, you know, I think about how you described the jurors when that announcement came in on Friday and the judge ultimately said it's going to be a holdout. It's going to be a mistrial. And I think the words that he used were, I have no choice but to declare a mistrial. In this conversation that you had with this female juror, I wonder what she was experiencing in that moment if she shared that with you. She shared that she certainly felt disappointed and that they had all worked really hard to try and reach a verdict in this case. I think what was so interesting for me to hear from her perspective is that she's someone who doesn't, I mean, she literally said, I don't watch the news. I live in my own little happy bubble. And she thought she was just reporting to jury duty that day when she got called in. When she found out the case that she was going to be on, she knew that she was a perfect juror, essentially. You know, she really hadn't followed the case at all, didn't know anything about it. She doesn't have any children. She didn't have any personal connection to this case. So she really came in with a clean slate mindset and the mindset that she wanted to do her responsibility as a jury, you know, to hear the evidence and make a decision just based on the evidence. But she did say, specifically what really stuck out to me, what she said was that she said she's never going to be the same person that she was before hearing the 911 call in this case and that hearing that changed her life. Yeah, I think that was one of the most chilling moments. I don't know about you, but I too feel like I will never be able to unhear or unfeel what it was like to be in the court in that moment. No, I agree completely. It was horrific. And, you know, Patrick, you remember Christina actually like was excused from the room while that call was playing. Now, all of these weeks later, after we found out this resulted in a mistrial, we got a statement from one of his lawyers, David Meyer, and it said, quote, the loss of Patrick's children is something from which he will never recover and from which there will never be closure. The prospect of reliving this tragedy through another trial is extraordinarily painful for Patrick, for his family, and for all of us, end quote. So Patrick, as you know, Christina, and we've talked about this for the last few weeks as well. This is someone who's been subjected to a lot of online scrutiny, a lot of speculation about his alleged involvement in this case, and he actually responded to some of that controversy as well now. Yeah, he did, following the declaration of a mistrial. So another one of Patrick's lawyers, Howard Cooper, released a statement on Tuesday saying this. It says, quote, enough is enough. This spread. This spread of blatant and baseless falsehoods must stop. Those responsible should understand that there will be consequences and every appropriate measure will be pursued to hold them accountable, including legally. Law enforcement has been notified, end quote. As you can see in that statement released, his team isn't afraid to take legal action here. And I also sat down with Kevin Reddington, Lindsey Clancy's attorney, after the trial and got his take on Patrick's statement. Here's what he had to say about that. The guy's been through hell and back. He has, as I've said repeatedly, stood by her during the period of time dealing with the doctors, dealing with the medications while she's awake at night in their house, taking her to doctors, taking her to the hospital, going to McLean, taking her to, dropping her off at the Rhode Island hospital, suicide lines, all of it. He's been there with her and still stands by her by way of his testimony. And it's, I think it's just horrible what he's been going through. You know, Christina, something that's interesting to me is you remember the last couple of days, even leading up to the possibility of a mistrial, he was asked about this over and over again because it wasn't just us, you know, traditional reporters who were there outside court. There was TikTokers, there were influencers, there were people asking all sorts of questions. I think early on in the trial, when there was less media coverage, he did dismiss them in conversations. But then once it really took off, and like you said, those content creators were there asking him about Patrick, he would always just answer by saying, you know, I represent Lindsay. But even on Friday after a mistrial was declared, I asked him, you know, here's your opportunity. Do you want to dispel any of those rumors about Patrick? To which he said he found it so interesting how people on the internet can take facts from a case and do their own investigation. So that's why when I talked to him on Tuesday, I wanted to make sure to ask him again, you know, put out this statement calling out these people do you have anything you want to say to that? And he did kind of walk back those comments there. He offered sympathy for what Patrick has been through in this case. Yeah. And I think that's such a through line, right? There's kind of no good outcome in a case like this. And I think it's safe to say that none of the parties involved actually wanted this to end in a mistrial. You know, obviously, Lindsay's defense team, Kevin Reddington, really seemed to be like fighting tooth and nail to avoid this situation. So I want to play some of that emergency appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court here. This is a member, by the way, of Lindsay's defense team, attorney Dana Goldblatt, appealing to the justice on Friday. But this one juror is refusing to apply doubt as the law states. So the refusal to apply something as the law states is different than a problem with deliberation. So the juror is acknowledging some kind of doubt and then refusing to follow the instruction about it. And that is what, which is, I think, when they refer to refusing to follow the instruction, they just refer to it as refusing to follow what the law states. Now, this was a pretty short conversation with the justice. Christina, I know you were in the room for this moment. Obviously, this appeal was eventually denied, but didn't it feel like he was sort of throwing a Hail Mary here? It absolutely did. In fact, it happened in the moment where the judge had already said to the lawyers, I'm going to declare a mistrial in this case. And there was silence in the courtroom as we were waiting for jurors to enter the courtroom for the formal declaration of a mistrial. In that waiting period is when Kevin Reddington stood up out of his seat and said, basically, hold on, judge, can you just give me a chance to appeal this before you declare a mistrial? So it definitely felt like, you know, a lightbulb moment there and a last attempt to avoid that mistrial. Yeah, I remember talking to some of our legal analysts. About that. And so many of them told me, Christina, like we've never seen anything like that. The way he propped right up midway through the jurors being brought in. It was quite something. So, look, the trial has formally ended. Judge Sullivan announcing that there's going to be this status hearing on September 29th at 9 a.m. So what do you expect we'll hear then? So that's really. There's really going to be a chance for both sides, prosecution and defense, to discuss next steps with the judge. And there are three possible outcomes after the mistrial. So first, the case could be retried on either the first degree murder charges or a lesser charge if the DA chooses. Second, the defense could negotiate a plea deal with prosecutors. Prosecutors would have to offer that as an option. And third, the prosecution could choose to drop the charges altogether. Now, as we mentioned, I sat down with Kevin Reddington after the mistrial announcement, and I was able to ask, Tim, if there was ever a plea deal that he would consider. And it's pretty interesting what he had to say. I would not plead Lindsay Clancy to a day in jail. And why is that? Because she doesn't deserve jail, because she was sick and because she doesn't deserve jail. I couldn't live with myself if she had a day in jail. So ultimately, it is up to the DA's office, the district attorney, Tim Cruz, to decide where the trial goes from here. And until that decision, what's going to happen now is that Lindsay will return to the state-run mental health facility where she's been since February of 2023 until a possible retrial happens or whatever next steps are taken. And I know you were talking about DA Tim Cruz, and we actually heard from him on Friday after the mistrial was announced. Here's some of what he said to the press. I do know that one of the questions that are out here right now regarding retrials, I will let you know that there'll be no decisions made today regarding that. I'm going to be meeting with our team, and we will address this, this case, further at the appropriate time in the context of an official court proceeding. So you'll not get an answer on that question today. The facts are Lindsay Clancy killed her three children, and the evidence suggested to us that she was in control of her actions when she committed those homicides. Our court system is built to weigh our views with those of the defense counsel and bear out whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. We did our part, and I'm proud of the part of the work that we did in this prosecution. Because this case is not about a healthcare system, or about how women are treated in it, or what's diagnosis there are in the DSM, or what there are not. Those are all important issues. They stir up emotion, and sometimes they stir up anger. This case, however, was about Lindsay Clancy and what she did on January 24th, 2023, and the cruel and calculated killing of three innocents. So he said he hasn't decided where they're going to go. to take this trial yet, but they do seem to be sticking to some of the arguments that we heard throughout the first trial. He had the same talking points in his press conference as the prosecutor made in her closing argument in the case, even suggesting that the entire conversation around mental health brought up by the defense is just a distraction and shouldn't actually be the focus of this trial. So based on his statements there, it certainly sounds like he's not in the position to drop charges against Lindsay Clancy. So it'll be interesting to see what comes next. Yeah, and I mean, it does seem like Tim Cruz feels really strongly about seeking justice for the three Clancy children, whether that means going for a guilty plea, or as you say, retrying the case. We'll have to keep an eye on how that plays out and what he says about that. But Reddington, he's been making a few moves of his own in the meantime. He had an appearance on Good Morning America this week, where he actually requested a pardon for Lindsay from President Trump. I mean, is that even. Possible, Christina? No, it's not possible, which was why it was so interesting to hear him say that. So this is a state trial. Lindsay Clancy is facing state charges, not federal charges. And for that reason, President Trump would not have the authority to pardon her. As we've mentioned, I spoke with Kevin Reddington. Kevin Reddington is aware of this fact, but he acknowledged in his interview with me that he knows President Trump has a lot of clout, his words, not mine. He noted that Tim Cruz is a Republican, and he hopes that perhaps President Trump could persuade Tim Cruz to drop the charges against Lindsay Clancy. Reddington said he was open to help of any kind. We have learned that President Trump apparently has been tuned into this case. He was asked about it on Friday after the mistrial and made statements saying that it's a terrible situation. So when Kevin Reddington heard that President Trump knew about this case, he decided to make an appeal to him. This is so interesting to me because I remember, as I'm sure you do too, Christina, that moment where we all found out together that the president had commented on this case. And I think we were all a little bit gobsmacked. I mean, it is a huge case. It feels like it's a big deal. And being there covering it, you know, you feel all the feels, but you're so in it that it was kind of an incredible moment to say, wow, the president is tuned in, is plugged into this. It was shocking, for sure. Yeah. And I think it really spoke to the public response to this trial in general because it's been so intense. You know, Lindsay's supporters, we saw them outside the court many times wearing pink shirts. You know, a lot of them had pink nail polish, pink bows in their hair, things like that. Talk to me about what you observed. Yeah. I mean, we knew there was there was this one day of trial, right, where there was this large rally of people there in support of Lindsay. That day really stuck out to the point where the judge actually spoke to jurors individually after that rally happened outside the courthouse. After that, and you were there, you saw there was like a smaller group of Lindsay Clancy supporters who showed up every single day. And the day of the mistrial, the line to get into the courtroom from the general public was so long that not everybody got inside every single time. And many of those people were there in pink, which is the color they decided to wear to show their support for Lindsay Clancy. And they stayed lined up just trying to get a seat in the courtroom for that moment all day, which it was really interesting to see. And I think that it was also interesting to see sort of the divisive nature of this story of Lindsay Clancy's story, because we saw the women that showed up in the pink shirts. And then a couple of days later, we started to see the women that showed up in white clothing, women who said that they felt like the three children were overlooked in the reporting of this story. And don't forget that the women got in fights with one another about the case outside of the courthouse, like on the plaza of the courthouse. And I think that's a really interesting thing to see. And I think that's a really interesting thing multiple times while the jury was in deliberations. There were women who were fighting about the facts of the case. Yeah. And people showing up with posters and signs and all of those things. It just feels like people felt very emotionally connected to this trial. Absolutely. I wonder, Christina, how you're thinking about if this were to play out again, would she get a fair trial, especially when you consider the intense reaction that we saw? I mean, how would they find jurors who don't know anything or don't have an opinion or reaction to this? I mean, it'll be hard, right? This isn't the first Massachusetts case I've covered in recent years that ended in a mistrial and then was retried. And we've talked about this before. I cover the Karen Reed case here in Massachusetts in 2024 and 2025. It was hard to find a jury for that case the first time, and it was even harder the second time. But they did it. I mean, the court can call in hundreds and hundreds of jurors for jury duty and question them at length in order to find the right people to sit on a jury. And certainly they exist. I mean, while so many people were tuned into this, not everyone was, and there will still be people who are able to separate what they've seen online from their ability to make a fair decision, but it certainly will take longer to find jurors. So I think everyone's wondering now, like, what happens next here? Obviously, we're all waiting for that September 29th hearing, but is it possible the DA would come forward before that and announce their plans? It's possible, but it's unlikely. And the reason is because DA Tim Cruz actually said in his press conference that he'll be announcing any decisions about a retrial in the court of law, not in the court of public opinion. So I wouldn't be surprised if we find out the next steps in that hearing on September 29th and not beforehand. And I'm just curious as well, because I know you have a legal background, Christina, what would be the reasoning, do you think, for the DA not to come forward right away and say, we're going to retry this case, as I think a lot of people assumed would happen when he came outside court on Friday after the mistrial was official? Well, not to bring up the Karen Reed case again, but in that case, when a mistrial was declared due to a hung jury, the DA came out immediately with a statement within a couple hours saying that they intended to retry the case. And the DA, this was in a different county, got a lot of pushback. A lot of pushback for not looking at maybe some failures in the prosecution or room for improvement or to see if anything should be done differently. So in a case like this, there's a lot to consider, as we've mentioned. You know, DA Tim Cruz doesn't just have to consider whether to retry, but it's what to retry on. Does he want to keep those first degree murder charges, which mandates another jury trial in Massachusetts? If it's first degree murder, there's no option for a judge to decide this case. So there's more that goes into the decision. So I think the district attorney is probably choosing to take the time before announcing that decision. It definitely signals some kind of contemplation on the side of prosecutors. And I think we have a bit of a clip here to play from what Tim Cruz said on Friday. So let's listen to that. I understand that this has been an emotional trial for everybody. It's emotional for the Duxbury community. It's even emotional for you members of the media. But in the end, I bring it all back. To the child victims in this case, Cora, Dawson, and Callen, this was and has always been about getting justice for those three little babies. And something that Cruz really mentions there is the children, the victims, right? You know, despite all the social media commentary, the speculation, the dueling arguments here, at the heart of this case, this is about three little children who lost their lives. Can you just talk about what it was like for you, Christine? I know you're a mother as well. Yeah, and I actually became a mother over the course of covering this case. So back when I was there reporting on the breaking news at the crime scene when these deaths happened back in 2023, you know, for me, I was just newly married. I didn't have kids. I was just there as a part of my job. But it was one of the most heartbreaking crime scenes I've ever been at. I've never seen police officers so emotional at a crime scene the way I did that night. You knew something really serious had happened just because of that. And I think that's a really important part of the of the looks on first responders' faces. And then over the course of time, you know, pre-trial hearings, I became a mother myself. I have a one-year-old at home now, and it didn't change the way I cover this case at all. But certainly hearing some of that evidence, it's heartbreaking for anybody to hear that 911 call and to hear the descriptions of what happened to those little kids. But it's hard as a mother to not to not to not to not to not connect to, you know, the experience of being postpartum and really feel touched by some of the descriptions of what happened that night. Yeah, it is uniquely such a difficult story because, as we've said, the victim's family is the defendant's family. And I don't think that there was ever going to be a good outcome here. And I've heard this from so many people, you know, we've been talking to is just there are so many questions still about what justice is supposed to look like. In this kind of situation. Christina, thank you so much. It's been such a pleasure to lean on you and to report alongside you. And it appears as though we might be back to do more of that. But thank you so much for joining us this week. It's true. Same to you. And thank you again for having me. Now we want to take this moment to say that if you or someone you know may be experiencing a mental health crisis, contact the 988-SUICIDE-AND-CRISIS-LIFELINE. Just call or text 988. And if you're pregnant or have just had a baby, you can dial or text the National Maternal Mental Health Hotline at 1-833-TLC-MAMA. And we'll be back next week with another episode of Case by Case. Be sure to rate and review and let us know which cases you're following and which cases you'd like us to follow. We'll see you next week on Paramount+. Starring Tom Hardy, Pierce Brosnan, and Helen Mirren. The clock is ticking. Come on, come on! I'll give you a ball! Mobland. New season hits September 18th on Paramount+.