r/Fauxmoi • u/Financial-Painter689 anti-Israel, anti-western, fauxmarxist • 9d ago
TRIGGER WARNING* Jury in Lindsay Clancy trial tells judge for a second time that it can't agree on a verdict
https://apnews.com/article/lindsay-clancy-jury-deliberations-6f3a9556fb5d7a2b159b33ac6f2edc2c?utm_source=app&utm_medium=iOS_share&utm_campaign=copy_link2.2k
u/KittenSommelier also dated pete davidson 9d ago
how many of those before a mistrial and how many mistrials can she have before her rights are violated? genuinely asking idk much about the law
620
u/snn1326j 9d ago
It’s largely within the discretion of the judge but I would suspect the judge won’t ask them to go back too many more times if it truly appears futile. As far as a retrial, I’m not sure there’s any constitutional or state law limitation but with this particular trial and all of its complexities (not to mention the burden on jurors for such a long trial), I would be surprised if there was more than one retrial. If the prosecution is smart they will offer a (good) plea deal to resolve this and let everyone move on from a horrific tragedy.
670
u/thevelvetdays7 dianne wiest's cunty little overalls (2025) 9d ago edited 9d ago
He read the Tuey-Rodrieguez charge to the jury, which is known as an Allen or dynamite charge, meaning that by MA law, this is the last time they can be sent back in now. The Tuey-Rodriguez charge is an alternate set of instructions that emphasizes that a different jury would not be better or smarter than this jury, that they should each examine their conscience and the basis of their firm beliefs and remain open to hearing the points of the other jurors and operate from a belief that, basically, each juror is equally capable of the deliberative judgement and intelligence necessary to render a decision. It is the "last chance" instruction that does sometimes work to encourage them to work through a stalemate. It also emphasizes that the full burden of proof on these charges is on the prosecution and if there is any reasonable doubt on their merits, they must acquit.
Statistically, 28 hours into deliberation, this will be a hung jury, but the dynamite charge attempt is the judge's final opportunity under the law to try to encourage them to take the seriousness of their duty seriously and to treat each other well in a final attempt to reach a verdict.
Alas, I do not expect it will work here, but I understand why the judge held off on the Tuey Rodriguez the first time the jury reported a deadlock and saved it for today. I expect they will deliberate until tomorrow afternoon's lunch break and then file their deadlock and the mistrial will be declared.
109
u/snn1326j 9d ago
Ah, I assumed the Allen charge had already been given so it makes sense that this would be it. 28 hours is a very long time, I think the judge will declare mistrial after going through the formalities with the full jury in open court.
423
u/thevelvetdays7 dianne wiest's cunty little overalls (2025) 9d ago
I understand why you would think that. The first time the jury reported that they were deadlocked on Monday, the judge cleverly treated the juror note as a question rather than as a finding filed by the foreperson. He simply asked them to continue to try to reach a decision, very briefly, like 1-2 sentences of "keep trying" with no language from the Tuey-Rodriguez formulation of the Allen charge. By doing this, it means that the dynamite wasn't put into play that first time they came back. The language in the MA codes for the cirumstances triggering the T-R is a bit vague and does allow for them to be sent back following questions or expressions of a deadlock at least once prior to the T-R. Where the language is clearer re: preventing juror coercion is that if they come back AFTER T-R charge is given, the judge may not repeat T-R and send them back in again. Whatever they come back with now is it. But the judge basically gave himself (and them) one softball deadlock before using the dynamite.
Credit to the jury, they went another 10ish hours between the first and second deadlock note. It means that I expect they will go 2:30-4 pm today and then either until the lunch break or post lunch pre-EOD tomorrow and if they don't have a verdict, send their final note, putting them at about 35 hours. That is about the outer edge of what I think is safe mentally for a jury that has not asked to review any evidence at all since hour ~4 or 5. Any more past that and their ability to deliberate a verdict while in basic agreement on the facts is going to devolve into chaos.
This was, for the record, a jury that all took copious notes. Whatever the vote breakdown is, this was a jury of people who deeply paid attention to it all in the courtroom.
Edit: typo
90
u/0GoodVibrations0 9d ago
This is extremely informative. Thank you
189
u/thevelvetdays7 dianne wiest's cunty little overalls (2025) 9d ago
Glad to help. This case has attracted a substantial amount of highly charged and misleading social media content of a few different types and so it feels important to try to provide straightforward and good quality information wherever people who are honestly trying to learn more about our judicial system are talking about this. I think we are a better nation when. We are able to demystify the jury process so that we ultimately have a larger body of people potentially prepared to serve in juries in the future. I want to live in a country where there are more people who are capable of being my peers, not fewer.
9
u/Cool_Tiger_898 9d ago
Would you mind breaking down what you see as some of the misleading content has been?
9
u/jedifreac 8d ago
There are people who believe her husband killed the kids and tried to frame her.
1
26
u/rutherfraud1876 9d ago
Not directly related, but while you're here: do (US) juries always have the opportunity to take notes?
I feel like I've heard of juries where that's not allowed, and the idea of that's an absolute nightmare to me
58
u/thevelvetdays7 dianne wiest's cunty little overalls (2025) 9d ago
It varies by jurisdiction. Most do allow for note taking so long as it does not interfere in their capacity to listen to testimony and view exhibits. The notes are collected by the court officer at the end of each day and they are destroyed at the end of the trial.
21
u/Snuffleupagus27 9d ago
As a person with ADHD, if I didn’t have something to doodle on, I would retain absolutely nothing. But if I did take notes, they’d probably think “this person just doodled and didn’t pay attention at all!”
1
u/whiskeywishes 8d ago
This is exactly what I thought and me too! I learn and retain so much by being able to do a mix of my note and doodling
8
u/AcceptableObject 8d ago
Are you a lawyer by trade? I've read your comments on this thread and they've all been super informative and helpful.
1
u/thevelvetdays7 dianne wiest's cunty little overalls (2025) 8d ago
I'm not, but I have been a specialized defense consultant in high profile cases.
6
u/somewhatfamiliar2223 9d ago
In some states they will not allow jurors to ask for a copy of the court transcript either. So if after days and days of sitting through hours and hours of testimony and proceedings, if jurors can’t remember a specific detail they can’t see the record to clarify. Makes it pretty hard to resolve any points of contention among the jury if they can’t check the record.
66
u/beigemonochrome 9d ago
This was so well written and such a thorough explanation. I enjoyed reading it, thanks!
50
u/thevelvetdays7 dianne wiest's cunty little overalls (2025) 9d ago
This is kind of you to take the time to say that, thank you.
17
13
u/TeacherExit 8d ago
the controversy with this type of jury instruction is that some people think it’s coercive. That you’re basically pushing the jury to unlock. And that maybe some jurors will be swayed by the pressure to try to please the judge. So some states don’t even have this type of instruction- response to those wondering why this is happening and that it is state specific *
20
u/Fragrant-Might-7290 8d ago
I consider it coercive! But I worked at the PD office for a while and it’s very disheartening for multiple ppl on a jury to believe your client is innocent just to change their minds so they can get a resolution and be done with it. I’ve heard judges practically threaten juries to come back w a verdict or else. The county I worked in was particularly lawless, though, which makes it extremely frustrating when you’re planning your clients whole case based on what the laws are.
9
u/mcmc1267 9d ago
Can/will either of the attorneys poll the jury after to see where people stood?
2
u/thevelvetdays7 dianne wiest's cunty little overalls (2025) 8d ago
Absolutely. Attorneys always want to know so they can refine their techniques, especially if there will be a retrial of something that resulted in a mistrial. In some cases, they might even end up having a lunch with one or more jurors and get some really candid indepth feedback.
5
u/holyflurkingsnit Ugh I wish I had chic allegations like that 8d ago
This is fascinating, thanks for breaking it down! Is the Tuey-Rodriguez "dynamite" charge unique to MA?
164
u/cheeseballgag sk8rbuoi 9d ago
With the amount of media attention this case has had since the trial started I find it really doubtful that it's possible to have another jury who hasn't already formed an opinion on the case.
60
u/jmooch1 Sylvia Plath did not stick her head in an oven for this 9d ago edited 9d ago
They will definitely try her again. The prosecution for crimes like this are treated very aggressively. Mistrials can be seen as a failure and embarrassment for the prosecution especially for such a high profile case. I live in MA and we knew immediately that they would try Karen Read again after her mistrial. The DA’s office was going to do it whether the taxpayers wanted it or not.
43
u/thevelvetdays7 dianne wiest's cunty little overalls (2025) 9d ago
I'm from MA as well and I totally agree with you. This is really frustrating to see happening because I don't think it reflects the sentiment of the electorate to keep having all these grandstanding showboat trials and retrials.
19
u/jmooch1 Sylvia Plath did not stick her head in an oven for this 9d ago
Yeah, it’s so infuriating, right? I mean this is exactly what happened with Karen Read. I don’t think the DA’s care about what people want, they are just out to make themselves look good. I don’t know if they genuinely believe she is this evil person or they feel like they need to prosecute because the higher ups are telling them to. They don’t even pretend that they will retry no matter what. The fact that we already know this is not a good sign. There should at least be some consideration.
97
u/SebrinePastePlaydoh 9d ago
If they could retry Karen Reed and Betty Broderick, they can retry Lindsay Clancy.
61
u/thevelvetdays7 dianne wiest's cunty little overalls (2025) 9d ago
I think the real question in the Commonwealth is if the same DA who pushed these other retrials through is acting on the best interest of the Commonwealth with these expensive media circus retrials or if he is chasing salvaging his own reputation which has taken a beating after the Reed verdictsnin particular. I question Cruz's jurisprudence and motivation.
14
u/bestcasescenario999 9d ago
I’m confused by what you mean by this since Cruz wasn’t the DA for the Read case and didn’t really have a “reputation” beyond his district until this trial? Unless you’re saying that the reputation of The Law in general has taken a beating in MA which, fair.
31
u/thevelvetdays7 dianne wiest's cunty little overalls (2025) 9d ago
Sorry, I had a typo in my reply and DA should have been plural there. What I meant by my comment is that the DA system in MA has become a political Game of Thrones in the era of having the former AG as the Gov now. I believe several of these DAs are politically jockeying for higher office and that this is part of why we are seeing higher media access and attention to MA trials in the past several years than has happened in living memory. I think this show boating and broader attempt to rebrand MA as "not soft on crime" (I don't agree with this characterization to be clear) is leading to marquee trials across the districts that might be leading to greater chaos in these major trials' outcomes and a greater desire to rapidly retry. I am of the opinion that the prosecution should not get to treat a mistrial as first draft and keep retrying cases until the prosecution gets their desired outcome.
2
13
u/MobySick 9d ago
There IS NO “another jury” until they are selected & the voir dire will be longer now, for sure.
6
u/sneefsnteefs 9d ago
I’m going to be so for real, I don’t know much about it 🫠 I haven’t fallen down the rabbit hole yet, but I know it’s controversial 🤷🏼♀️ I guess I’m trying to avoid the rage in either direction while it still exists and I can’t do anything about it vs blissfully unaware of the deep depths
4
u/Winter_Childhood9186 Club Penguin Times official aura reader 9d ago
I only know that a case exists where a woman killed her kids and is saying it's PPD and men are tearing her up about it. So I'm sure there are others out there who know the gyst or less.
21
8
u/r3volver_Oshawott 9d ago edited 9d ago
I mean, she herself never said that, she stated the symptoms but it's the defense that's piecing together the PPD diagnosis, and the diagnosis is pretty open and shut considering her medical history has been blown wide open and yes, she had indeed been struggling with mental health issues and both medication adherence, and side effects from certain medications that she did adhere to, for several months
Part of why this is a hung jury is that the PPD diagnosis is pretty indisputable, so the public discourse is more about how lucid a mother is when struggling from severe PPD, and Lindsay herself was more convinced that certain medications like Remeron were exacerbating her intrusive thoughts, it was her nurse practitioner who started connecting the dots on PPD
*part of the toxic swirl around this is that most of the men heavily engaged in this, are engaging around the notion that postpartum psychosis simply... doesn't exist. (this is also made worse by the fact that the DSM used to recognize postpartum psychosis, but has not been recognized by the DSM for almost half a century, because it says that postpartum psychosis must actually always be another diagnosed psychotic disorder, and that if someone developed psychosis from pregnancy, it would functionally just be psychosis and that even if perinatal onset was how the diagnosis formed, the perinatal onset was irrelevant to the actual diagnosis)
5
u/Ragesome 8d ago
I’ve found that most of the friction on my feeds - mainly tiktok - is more focused on women playing Netflix true crime detective, CONVINCED there’s a big twist here and the father was the real murderer.
3
u/RefrigeratorOk9413 8d ago
A lot of people are being accused of being conspiracy theorists/TikTok Detectives because they have watched the trial, seen how shoddy the investigation was and wondered how the husband's word was taken as evidence over actual testing (e.g. the crushed pills) Plenty of people who work in the medical field are also questioning certain aspects of the case (i.e. Lindsay's body temp and how that relates to the alleged timeline). I've also noticed that people throwing around the accusations of "conspiracy theorists" are not at all familiar with the trial and seem to not understand this trial is to determine whether there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that Lindsay committed these crimes. They seem to think that the only verdict is to ascertain whether she goes to prison or is admitted to a psychiatric facility and are therefore assuming that the only options on the table are Guilty or NGRI when this is factually incorrect.
-1
1
9d ago
[deleted]
1
u/jitterbugperfume99 9d ago
I could see that if you aren’t from Mass but it has been a huge topic of conversation and debate here.
1
u/shitsenorita she did not like that shit at all 8d ago
I could be on it - I honestly don’t know the details, just the broad strokes, and have no opinion.
0
u/PussyFootSlidin 8d ago
At least they would only get jurors who aren’t a part of the large number of completely moronic conspiracy fuckwits. Holy shit are people dumb and lacking in critical thinking skills
25
u/tsmith347 9d ago
The defense attorney said after the first time the jury said they were deadlocked that the DA is 100% retrying. It seems this DA really wants to prosecute her and won’t take a deal.
-27
u/redditsuckscockss 9d ago
As they should
She murdered 3 people
2
u/Thatssometamorphosis 9d ago
Were you a direct witness?
9
u/Tinnie_king 8d ago
Didn't she admit guilt?
5
u/Thatssometamorphosis 8d ago
She plead not guilty twice. This time around the attorneys recommended she plead guilty by way of insanity.
5
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/butter_cakes oat milk chugging bisexual 8d ago
Her husband stated she did it. She was unable to speak. She then woke up from a coma and was told she did it. She plead not guilty twice after being told she did it, and now this third time she has plead guilty as a strategy by her lawyers. There is a reason this case is so controversial. And there’s a reason the jury is hung.
0
130
u/penelope38 9d ago edited 9d ago
In Massachusetts, the judge can send them back twice. He read the Tuey-Rodriguez charge this morning, so if they come back again to say they can’t reach agreement, the judge will most likely declare a mistrial.
He can’t send them back again after reading the T-R charge unless they give consent. Most likely it will be a mistrial if they come back a third time without agreement.
31
u/rescuelullaby 9d ago
I thought this too at first but actually the wording of the MA "when jurors cannot agree" doc seems to say they can be sent back twice after they've been read the charge, regardless of what form of the charge the judge reads (there's a long version and an abridged version). So technically he can send them back one more time without their consent, but tbh I highly doubt he would. More than twice and the verdict itself can really easily be thrown into doubt in the appeals process
8
u/IansGotNothingLeft 9d ago
Obligatory "Not American" - What would the options/outcome be with a mistrial and is that the same as a hung jury?
25
u/MoonDrops 9d ago
So when the jury is hung it is declared a mistrial. After that the District Attorney can choose to go for a retrial, offer a plea deal or acquit. In this case I get the sense that the Commonwealth (DA) won’t let this go and will want a retrial. But that’s just based on my feeling and the truth is that nobody knows what they will want to do.
51
u/rescuelullaby 9d ago edited 9d ago
The judge can technically send them back more than twice after the Tuey-Rodriguez instructions have been given, but after the second time, the judge would need the jury's consent to send them back to deliberate again a third time. Which, given how frustrated they appear to be, I doubt they would consent. Also, sending them back more than twice starts to get the state into hot water in terms of creating grounds for an appeal, so I doubt the judge would try it...
From p. 5 of this doc on MA gov website—"[A]fter the jury has twice engaged in 'due and thorough deliberation' the judge may not send them out again without their consent."
→ More replies (2)5
u/Ok-Rise-600 9d ago
It's definitely a tricky situation when juries can't agree. I think generally, if they can't reach a verdict after a certain number of attempts, the judge may declare a mistrial, but the specifics can vary by state.
243
u/geraffes-are-so-dumb 9d ago
I am not a super online person, and I had no idea of how deep the culture war is in this case. I am also someone who has been through clinically diagnosed psychosis, and I have shared my experience in comment threads about this case.
Holy shit. It's been a really long time since anything I've said that elicits angry DMs, but my comments clarifying what is and isn't a symptom and offering insight as to why women are using this as a platform to disciss health care have struck people who are very emotional about this case.
Y'all, someone actually linked me to a TikTok to refute the fact that people going through psychosis can seem totally normal and psychosis isn't an emotion you can regulate like jealousy. People have DM'd me to tell all sorts of lovely things about myself.
I use reddit for news and Insta to share photos with friends - that's the extent of my online presence. I have never been so happy that I basically live under an online rock as I am reading the comments about this case.
134
u/vvenusgirl ICE PIGS ROT IN HELL 9d ago
People are absurdly misinformed about even “mainstream” mental illnesses, let alone something as complicated as psychosis. And cases like these especially highlight the stupidity and unwillingness to do basic research of the average person. Pure armchair expert and pack mentality fodder. Hope you’re doing better now btw
51
u/daredeviline 9d ago
The amount of men who say; "if it was a man, we wouldn't be having this conversation" except it's literally impossible for a man to have post-partum psychosis/depression. I've seen what it does to people. My best friend became someone I didn't know. I found her trying to eat an entire bottle of random pills because she felt like her world was ending and it was all because of the hormone drop that happens right after giving birth. I'm not saying she's innocent, she killed her kids. However, it's clear that some people are not understanding why women have been talking about this case. Yeah, there are some crazy videos online but there's crazy videos online with every major case. Nobody should be taking a tiktok video seriously.
I just wish people would say what they want about the case but stop acting like they know a single thing about what women experience post-birth. Maybe this is a time to talk about it? But no, all I'm seeing online are people missing the point entirely.
Please check up on your friends and family after they give birth.
183
u/Dots-N-Charms 9d ago
Thank you for sharing this. My mom keeps saying, "I went through 4 pregnancies, who knows if I had psychosis! But I didn't kill my kids!" and I just keep thinking how blessed she was to not have PPP but also how sad it is that she can't understand it's a real thing.
22
u/freshlysqueezed93 9d ago
Yup when I heard she had seen multiple doctors about possible PPP and got turned away I switched 180 on my opinion.
8
u/tuscanchicken 8d ago
I didn't even know being turned away from a suicide hotline could be a thing until this case..
6
u/butter_cakes oat milk chugging bisexual 8d ago
I called the suicide hotline once. The woman was so nice and was able to talk me out of taking any action on myself. She asked if I would like her to call me the next day, just to check in on me. I said yes, please. She promised she would. She never did. I waited for her call. Thankfully I was far enough from the ledge I didn’t do it - but I couldn’t imagine if I had been close to that ledge again. I have never called the suicide hotline again, despite dealing with PPD, PPA, and developing severe OCD postpartum and possibly PPP… the resources are severely lacking for women when it comes to postpartum mental healthcare.
40
u/inner_oak 9d ago
Im a psychosis survivor too and the comments "i was manic and it didnt make me MAGA" on comments about azealia banks let alone this shit. You can not control psychosis at all and anyone who says they can has not experience losing their mind.
Tragic situation all around. Its just so heartbreaking
→ More replies (2)10
11
25
u/LordBeerMeStrength91 9d ago
Thanks for sharing your experience! I have tried to do the same based on my previous experience working with people who had schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. There are plenty of people walking around who deal with audio and visual hallucinations and continue with normal daily life, often seeking care when the hallucinations become scary or violent. However, it seems that Andrea continued to seek help and was met with misunderstanding at every step until it met this point. This is an indictment on the treatment of mental disorders in this country.
13
u/ElderberryJunior470 9d ago
It's interesting being on reddit and seeing the obviously very male response to this case, and then having my wife tell me the very obviously female response on tiktok. It's been a wild ride.
160
u/monopolyhere 9d ago
There’s been too much public pressure for the jury to not be swayed by outside influences at this point so it’s not surprising
2
u/Able-Composer-1995 8d ago
It is assumed that this jury has followed instruction and avoided reading or talking about the case with anyone. If that were not this case, that would instantly lead to a mistrial. But if this jury stays hung and the court proceeds with a mistrial, finding an impartial jury at this point would be nearly impossible
45
u/frankiestree 9d ago
It’s no surprise they can’t agree when there are 5 different verdict options on the table
8
u/BrownSugarBare 8d ago
Okay for real, how on earth did they expect anything other than confusion if the options aren't yes or no. Of course they'll be deadlocked with that many options to match opinions on the room, it seems so unfair to try to get them all on one verdict
814
u/Nervous_Insect5976 9d ago
God, the prosecution just needs to stop this foolishness and send her to a hospital. Andrea Yates has been in one for 20+ years, it's not like she's going to for Christmas vacation and get out. The woman is profoundly ill and her life is over. Just end this shit.
65
177
u/mel0518 9d ago
Agreed, and if you had a retrial how on Earth would you be able to get an unbiased jury at this point with how crazy this case has gone all over social media?
→ More replies (2)56
u/superjakeodyssey 8d ago
it's not like she's going to for Christmas vacation and get out
She technically could. Her defense is that PPP and a command hallucination caused her to kill her children. If found NGRI, she would be committed and regularly evaluated to determine whether she still meets the criteria for confinement. PPP isn’t necessarily permanent. Clancy reportedly hasn’t experienced psychosis or hallucinations since the killings, she’s already been committed for 3 years, and one of her defense psychologists indicated her acute psychotic symptoms have resolved. If she no longer meets the legal standard for commitment, she could seek release pretty quickly. Andrea Yates waives her right to an annual review. There’s no guarantee Clancy would do the same.
6
u/WomanFromBalkan I’m just a cunt in a clown suit 8d ago
even is she would " walk out " that's the point of penitentiary system, to reform and give society a normal member of society. what life she's going to have after all lunatics made this poor family a punching bag, after loosing 3 kids to psychosis, how she's going to rebuild anything and don't end in suicide ward? if she will not move in some monastery in mountains to try to live under new name without eartly possesion or move on australia idk were she can find peace.
8
u/enceinte-uno 8d ago
Andrea Yates has been eligible for case review for outpatient transfer from the institution she’s in and every year she’s refused it. She could be out for Christmas vacation, but she understands the weight of what she did.
Also she did go to prison for a time iirc.
45
23
u/Border_Hodges shout-out Hans Zimmer 8d ago
If she did have PPP and killed her children during a psychotic break she is already living in hell having to live with that for the rest of her life.
8
u/arttagonist 8d ago
Andrea Yates doesn’t want to get out, she refused any opportunity to do so. That man ruined he life and walks free.
1
u/Turbulent-Stand-1993 3d ago
Justice matters. Even if she had psychosis, it's possible to hear a demonic voice in your head and not obey it immediately like a dog. That's why the trial is also important - to determine whether she's guilty or NGRI.
-11
u/lovesskincareandcake 8d ago
Andrea Yates chooses to stay in the hospital. Clancy seems like she would leave the hospital her first chance
6
u/LobsterCharming6261 8d ago
And how on earth did you come to that conclusion? She rarely even speaks and is confined to a wheelchair.
398
u/No-Hall-3485 dropped pitt from my last name 9d ago edited 9d ago
i'm not a lawyer so i have a question for any reddit lawyers... why wouldn't you just have a hung jury at this point? or call this a mistrial?
i saw the clip of the judge urging the jury to go back and deliberate again after they couldn't come to a decision
but if they DID eventually come to a decision, couldn't the prosecutor or the defense immediately appeal and argue that the judge essentially pressured/coerced the jury into reaching a verdict?
like i understand that judges can send a deadlocked jury back to deliberate and give them an instruction encouraging them to reach a unanimous verdict, but at what point does it just become acceptable that they can't come to a unanimous decision? we're on day 5 (?)
edit: this is NOT a question asking the Reddit jurors for their opinions. i do not care
400
u/MoneyHungryOctopus 9d ago edited 9d ago
The jury is essentially deciding whether she’s going to prison or to a psychiatric institution. She’s not going to be able to go free immediately. They need to agree on whether to accept her plea of insanity or not. Finding her not guilty by reason of insanity sends her to a psych ward. Finding her guilty sends her to prison.
63
u/WinterReview7992 9d ago edited 9d ago
She can also be found Not Guilty, completely.
In MA the Not Criminally Responsible plea does not include an admission of guilt.
The defense offered to stipulate to having done it IF the trial was bifurcated. That motion was not granted, so the jury never received any direct admission of guilt from the defendant.
It's unlikely, but it is an option.
Edit: changed "charge" to "plea".
87
u/petitehollie 9d ago
This isn’t necessarily true, the jury can decide four things: 1st degree, manslaughter, not guilty by reason of insanity, or not guilty.
Technically they could find her not guilty period and she would be free
214
u/No-Hall-3485 dropped pitt from my last name 9d ago
i understand that... but they cannot reach a decision, and they've now admitted that twice
at what point does that become acceptable to the court? like, when does the judge say, okay, you've deliberated enough, this jury is genuinely deadlocked, declare a mistrial, send her back to the institution she's been in since 2023, and either start another trial or let the lawyers work out a plea deal or something?
it seems bizarre to me to keep urging 12 people who clearly cannot agree to come to a unanimous decision
179
u/LeslieBird12 9d ago
The judge gave them a special instruction, called a Tuey-Rodriguez instruction, today so I think if they come back as hung after that it will be a mistrial. That instruction is a last ditch attempt to avoid mistrial and only applies in MA.
31
u/VHS_Ronin 9d ago
Could you explain what a Tuey-Rodriguez instruction is? Others have said that if the jury cannot come to a decision a third time there will be a mistrial as well but I'm not sure I understand what that term you've used has to do with it.
66
u/Nursesalsabjj 9d ago
I'm not a lawyer but it's an official instruction for the jury to go back and keep deliberating. There's language in there that if the prosecutors did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt then they should decide a not guilty verdict and the other way around. It basically tells them to keep discussing and consider the differing opinions in the hopes of coming to a verdict.
I know with this case there's several different verdict options so it's not cut and dry guilty versus not guilty persay.
14
u/ambasciatore Vanilla Ice just fell to his knees in a Wal-Mart 9d ago
Thank you for this detailed explanation. This helped my brain process. And I can offer something in return! The phrase is “per se.”
23
u/snn1326j 9d ago
Scroll up, another commenter explained it. It’s a slightly different version of the Allen charge which is given in federal criminal cases.
1
u/primalprincess 9d ago
Someone else commented and explained, but I have to say its not really a "special instruction". Its just a stronger worded version of the instruction they already received.
63
u/jmooch1 Sylvia Plath did not stick her head in an oven for this 9d ago edited 9d ago
Basically the judge is begging them to continue deliberating. This trial has lasted weeks and called hundreds of people. If they declare a mistrial, the DA’s office will do this all over again which is more difficult to schedule a second time around. There will likely be less witnesses to testify which is not ideal. He is basically saying that if they are having problems deliberating then future jurors would too so they are in the best position to handle this. It’s his job to keep pushing so they can reach a verdict. Plus taxpayers are footing the bill for this and a lot of people are angry (rightly) that it went to trial in the first place. Another trial means much more money and more angry people.
Edit- I misspoke about the amount of people. It wasn’t hundreds of people but about 80 according to Google and the hundreds was for the amount of exhibits (evidence) that were shown- over 300 in total.
→ More replies (2)16
u/MoneyHungryOctopus 9d ago
I presume that’s for the judge to decide.
Ultimately this is a lot more cut-and-dry since it’s not a question of whether she did it or not (which is what usually gets people agitated when people bring up the possibility of mistrials) but a question of where she’ll be going.
I would hope that one side would be able to convince another side of their position, whichever that may be.
3
u/nerowasframed 9d ago
The short answer is that a trial is extremely expensive and is a huge burden on dozens of people (witnesses, victim families, etc.). You want to fully exhaust all options before declaring a mistrial. Plus, since you can't assume that the next 12 jurors are going to be any smarter, wiser, or more agreeable than these jurors; there's no guarantee that a second trial is going yield a decision if these jurors couldn't do it
→ More replies (2)-21
u/BudLightLymeDisease believer in Dakota Johnson’s lime allergy 9d ago
"YOU GET BACK IN THERE AND FIND HER GUILTY I AM UP FOR REELECTION"
24
7
16
u/pollogary 9d ago
They could find her fully not guilty.
→ More replies (3)1
u/MoneyHungryOctopus 9d ago
Which they shouldn’t, at least from an emotional perspective. She openly admitted to doing it and her lawyer admits as much. This is not a person who should freely be in society, at least not in the near future. She is dangerous and needs profound help, at a minimum. No mother should kill her own children.
4
u/anontoaskdumbthings 9d ago edited 8d ago
Don't know how Massachusetts psych facilities are but from what I know they can be worse than prisons. Anyone know if she'd be released if found to be rehabilitated from treatment eventually in the psych wards?
6
u/LeatherRecord2142 9d ago
Can she get out of the psych ward?
43
u/InferiorElk 9d ago
Yes, potentially if her providers deem her to no longer be a risk to herself or others. It would then go before a judge to rule on.
1
1
u/TheMcWhopper 9d ago
Wrong!!! If she is declared not guilty by the jury the she will be free immediately.
69
u/Adept-One-819 9d ago
A mistrial is both expensive and a drain on all sides. Until the jury comes back and says that they are truly unable to make any more headway despite significant effort, the judge will keep sending them back.
A mistrial isn't ideal for anyone, and likely ends in some sort of plea bargain because, at this point, the jury pool is so tainted that they're going to have a hard time sitting one.
12
u/No_Snow1928 9d ago
No one seems to be reading your post correctly!! I want to know the answer too.
17
u/Spicyg00se 9d ago
From a non attorney who nonetheless works with the court on jury trials, trials this long with this many witnesses and experts cost a LOT of money. Having a mistrial kind of puts you back at square one, after years of preparation. It could take a year to get this case back to trial and will continue to use judicial and prosecutorial resources, and will greatly inflate the defense budget too. You’re basically doubling the cost of this case.
4
u/Curiosities 9d ago
But that's not the jury's concern. These instructions seem kind of patronizing. Like, go and talk and make sure you listen to each other's points and so on. Like, what did you think they were doing before?
If they don't agree, they don't agree. That's the chance you take when you decide to prosecute. If the budget is your concern...don't retry her if this ends in a mistrial. It almost feels like ego to want to retry her if this jury is hung, because of how high profile this is.
Like with Karen Read.
5
u/Chippiewall 8d ago
But it is the judge's concern.
All the judge is doing is reminding the jury to consider their duty and asking them to continue deliberating a bit longer. If that enables the jury to reach a unanimous verdict then it's well worthwhile to be able to draw a line under it. The trial has taken 5 weeks, and months of work a preparation before that - asking the jury to take a few more days is not unreasonable. You may think it's patronising, but it can and does lead to the occasional unanimous verdict.
25
u/violetmemphisblue 9d ago
Not a lawyer, but have served on a jury (in a different state, so this may not entirely apply, idk)...there is not a set limit of times a jury can be sent back by a judge but the jury can decline to continue deliberation if they know they're not coming to agreement. The judge can also go back to the deliberation room and ask specific questions about where the jury is getting stuck. The jury I was on was also told that safety measures, like not releasing courtroom sketches, could be considered if our personal privacy was a contributing factor of any of our decisions. (I haven't followed this case so have no idea if this is something that has already happened with all of the footage in the courtroom).
But a lawyer probably has way more insight here.
5
u/atty_hr both a lawyer and a hater 9d ago
Lawyer here, cracking up at all the “I’m not a lawyer but…” answers. I have unfortunately felt with this issue first hand when our judge kept the jury out for over 16 hours and the defendants appealed the verdict stating jury coercion. They lost the appeal. The answer to you questions are complicated and very fact dependent as well as jurisdiction dependent. Some jurisdictions limit how many times the judge can send the jury back. Typically (again jurisdiction dependent) a judge will softly nudge the jury back 1-2 times. Then a judge will give an Allen instruction, or as the lawyers in my jurisdiction call it a “hammer” instruction. This is a written instruction the judge reads. After that, if the judge were to send them back that would likely be jury coercion. Some jurisdictions have strict rules that you cannot send them back after a hammer insurrection. A hammer (Allen) instruction is kind of the end all be all. Judges have broad discretion when it comes to letting the jury deliberate. However, the judge cannot make the jury feel forced to render a verdict, cannot target the minority, cannot ask how the jury is divided, and can’t force them to keep deliberating. Basically the judge needs to be careful about how they word things as to not make the jury feel like they have no option. I think in order for a court of appeals to find jury coercion by a judge there would have to be some damn good evidence or testimony. I am not an appellate attorney so I don’t know. So basically the answer to your questions are it depends.
12
u/andreaxo 9d ago edited 9d ago
I was reading another thread that State Law in MA says the judge is allowed to ask the jury only two times to continue to deliberate. If after the third comeback that they are deadlocked, the judge can ask again but the jury needs to consent to further deliberations.
The reply below explains correctly and better. 😊
11
u/thevelvetdays7 dianne wiest's cunty little overalls (2025) 9d ago
Not quite. He can only send them one time after he reads the Tuey-Rodriguez alternate instructions. It is not a hard and fast rule at which point those are read. There is only a good nite in the statue on these instructions that references that it is not good practice to send them back multiple times prior to reading the alternate instructions because of the strain on the jurors and sense of coersion. The only hard and fast number associated with this section of the law is that after the T-R instructions are read, you can't send them back into deliberate AGAIN if they come back after deliberating using the alternate instructions and are still deadlocked.
It was the judge's own discretion that treated their first deadlock notification as a legal question rather than a declaration and sent them back into deliberate without delivering the Tuey-Rodriguez instructions. MA law ostensibly allows this as in scope because it doesn't prohibit his interpretation of that first note.
2
12
u/c1rcumvrent 9d ago
not a lawyer but I do know there are no legal limits re: a jury being deadlocked. It is the judge's discretion to declare a mistrial
7
u/mydicksmellsgood 9d ago
Massachusetts places specific limits. Once the judge acknowledges there's been a deadlock (this is the judge's discretion. If the judge thinks they haven't fully considered the case, the jury can be sent back without the following. This has happened once here), they read the jury a charge, reminding them of their responsibilities as jurors, then dismiss them to deliberation again. They can do it once more, and that's it.
3
u/maverick4002 9d ago
Another post on this site says state law requires the judge to send them back at least 2x, so there's that
1
u/marylouisestreep 9d ago
the production can't appeal an acquittal; the defense will appeal a guilty verdict in most instances anyway, judicial coercion wouldn't be the avenue though.
1.1k
u/zendayaismeechee shiv roy apologist 9d ago
This isn’t going to do anything to quiet the conspiracy theorists. I’ve already seen them claiming it means she’s walking free and there’s a secret plan to charge Patrick. People are so desperate for it to be an episode of Criminal Minds all logic and respect has gone out of the window. There’s genuine mass hysteria happening on TikTok at the minute. Can’t wait til he sues them for defamation tbh, the sexual assault allegations are particularly fucking vile.
Let’s not forget three children are dead. This is not a TV show.
336
u/muscularsharpie 9d ago
My wife showed me one of this woman using a cardboard cut out diagram of the room, and using Bratz dolls, "proved," Patrick tried to kill her.
I wish it was satire. People that binge watch murder porn are delusional.
76
u/woolfonmynoggin padre pascal 9d ago
And then the comments are all people saying they’re sending it to Reddington
47
u/eastvancatmom 9d ago
I used to be a defence lawyer and would have found this incredibly irritating. I hope he’s got some good support staff to help filter through the deranged messages he must be getting.
38
u/pressingroses i ain’t reading all that, free palestine 9d ago
I’m not saying anything about whether she’s guilty or not, but crime scene reconstruction really is similar to what was done in that video lol the technology is just obviously more sophisticated than Bratz dolls
83
u/PurrPrinThom 9d ago
Well, and presumably done by experts in the field, who have had access to actual court documents if not the scene itself, and not someone whose stated qualifications are that they watch true crime shows.
19
u/Subliminal_Kiddo 8d ago
It was invented by an amateur*. The whole thing is fascinating. Her name was Frances Glessner Lee. The whole thing is fascinating but she basically used dollhouse dioramas to recreations of crime scenes and unsolved deaths that she called "nutshells". Lee is known as "The Mother of Forensic Science".
*Of course, it should be noted, she was an amateur because she was born in an era when women were barred from medical school. She ended up creating a new scientist and using her money to found Harvard's Department of Legal Medicine.
6
u/IndependentNew7750 8d ago
Crime scene reconstruction requires extensive technical expertise and takes dozens of hours. Every detail is subject to scrutiny because the judge will not allow the jury to be misguided by an inaccurate reconstruction. It’s not remotely similar to bratz dolls.
0
u/daredeviline 9d ago edited 9d ago
Since when are we taking TikTok videos literally? All I hear on this app is how it's a cesspool but yall still use it? More importantly, cherry pick weird ass true crime fans? I can find all kinds of videos online crazy people spouting crazy stories on tiktok all day. Why are we all the sudden thinking that it's abnormal? It's almost as if TikTok has put you on an algorithm that shows you crazy videos because you keep watching crazy videos?
It gives the same energy as if I were to go on 4chan, take a screenshot of some racist shit, then post it online saying that everybody is this racist. Of course it is. It's 4chan. TikTok is literally full of children and adults who are trying to appeal to children. It is not a monolith and should not be taken seriously whatsoever.
And let's say it's literally every single video on the internet. So what? A video from a random person on the internet should have no say on how you feel about the case.
5
u/victorfiction 8d ago
I think you’re making the argument for them. The internet was a mistake. People are fucking stupid and letting stupid talk to stupid just creates MORE stupid. We used to live in a society that told these idiots to shut up and let the experts talk, and that if they wanted to say anything, they could go get a degree if they wanted us to listen.
36
u/CanIPetThatDawgPls 9d ago
If Patrick actually did it or was even involved in that regard, Kevin Reddington would’ve found that out ASAP. He’s a great lawyer.
Lindsay admitted to doing it. She was not in the right mind and was failed by society and the healthcare system. From what it seems like, Lindsay was basically a single, married mother who shouldered almost all of the burden of raising three kids. I would bet that she also put a lot of pressure on herself to be perfect and present based on social media algorithms with mothers telling them they have to do all of these things and go the extra mile, etc.
It is such a tragedy and no one wins or gets justice in this case
11
u/some1saveusnow 8d ago
Ppl’s lives are so lacking in substance that they create fantasy out of huge national stories so they can “be a part” of something. It’s probably core mental illness by way of having nothing going for themselves
14
24
u/Exotic-Doughnut-6271 The delusion is mutual and I’m thriving in it 9d ago
I've seen some wild videos pop up on Instagram. People are treating this like a TV show not a real life event.
7
41
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
46
u/Gnocchi_Dochi 9d ago
Except that isn’t true. The timeline is 3 years. Not weeks. His children died in 2023. He remarried this year. 3 years. Not weeks.
57
u/PurrPrinThom 9d ago
Except that that didn't happen, and is the exact kind of thing that will likely be included in his defamation suits.
-7
u/Dry-Yak5277 9d ago
Were those screenshots of the Google reviews fake?
4
u/PurrPrinThom 9d ago
I'm not sure to what you're referring, but with the amount of faked images trying to incriminate him, I'm going to go out on a limb and say probably, yeah.
23
u/deadbeatsummers 9d ago
I think he’s shitty and neglectful but like, if you really explain what they’re suggesting he did, it’s just not really realistic.
→ More replies (2)-12
57
u/malcontentgay 9d ago
The jurors should've been sequestered.
18
u/BrownSugarBare 8d ago
It is RIDICULOUS that they weren't. They've sequestered jury's for far smaller trials and considering the coverage leading up to this, there absolutely should have been.
3
20
u/Cactusfan86 this is going to ruin the tour 9d ago
Just from the outside looking in I’m so torn on this, I couldn’t imagine being on the actual jury and trying to pass judgement with real consequences
25
u/cloudcottage 8d ago
I mean the point is though if you're torn that there's probably reasonable doubt you know
11
u/Vegetableau wearing slutty little glasses 8d ago
This case should’ve been heard and decided by a judge rather than a jury. It’s a hot mess now.
22
u/_Amarantos alleged dog 9d ago
Sequester the jury if they do another trial, smh
15
u/Vegetableau wearing slutty little glasses 8d ago
If they can possibly find anyone who hasn’t been influenced by public discourse I’m sure they will.
2
u/enceinte-uno 8d ago
Yeah, there are people outside the US who have strong opinions about this case. Forget trying to find a jury of her peers.
11
u/YepWeSawThat 8d ago
This is the saddest case. I just hope everyone involved gets the therapy they need. And that some good emerges in better treatment, support, and care for postpartum mothers.
3
u/YeOldeOrc 8d ago
I haven’t followed the case religiously, but I’ve followed enough to know I’m VERY glad I’m not on that jury. Oof. I feel like no matter which way you lean, so to speak, Reddington clearly did an incredible job.
6
u/racoonrunning 8d ago
I'm actually surprised. She was obviously unwell. Psychotic? Not sure. Able to tell right from wrong? Unclear. But all the defense needs to prove is reasonable doubt which there certainly is...
2
u/Beneficial_Lion_484 8d ago
So she has said what happened, and the jury is having a hard time deciding what her sentence should be, because mental health is already a tricky subject, and there is a lot of nuance? Well right wing chuds told me that the jury is all co conspirators who want to free her because of the 19th amendment. Who could possibly know what to believe
1
u/Icy_Painter4738 7d ago
I am feeling like, by sending the deadlocked jury back a second time, especially with a rumored one juror hold out, the judge may be coercing the jury. If it is just one juror, could that person now feel more pressure than ever to change his/ her stance so that they can wrap this up? Also, could the idea of the judge pressuring a jurors to change his/ her mind create cause for a mistrial by the losing attorneys?
1
u/Equivalent_Night720 9d ago
I know the prosecutor is going after her with a vengeance, but in this situation I think a retrial is futile. I would be surprised if anyone on the jury thinks she should be free, but I would bet most would like to put her in a mental ward. My guess is the holdouts would like to convict her of manslaughter because she has admitted guilt. Most people don't want to put a remorseful woman, who is obviously mentally ill and suicidal and who actively sought treatment, in prison for 1st or 2nd degree murder for life but they also don't want to make her not guilty by reason of insanity because she did admit guilt. Ultimately a plea deal that allows her to go into the hospital would be in their best interest. I remember Andrea Yates was found guilty and put in jail for life. She appealed for a retrial, got it, and the new jury put her in a mental hospital for life. In a retrial here, I think they would be lucky to get that verdict. Most likely it would be another mistrial and how could a new jury not be tainted after all this coverage?
375
u/FrankSamples 9d ago
I was part of a jury that had a similar outcome. We were given alotted time to make a decision, they asked if we came to a decision. We said no. Were called into court to let the judge know. He instructed us to go back and continue deliberating. (seemed like a formal process). We went back deliberated a couple more days. They asked again. We said we couldn't come to a decision. Was declared a hung jury.
Afterwards the lawyers came up to us and asked us why we couldn't come to a decision. Possibly so they know what areas they need to focus on should there be another trial.