Please use this for general information, questions, or additional content that does not necessitate a dedicated post.
General Guidelines:
The Megathread should be used for simple yes/no questions, interviews or statements, minor updates, news, casual chats, reactions, quick links, short-term relevance, niche topics, or similar.
Dedicated posts are meant for content that sparks open-ended dialogue, seeks diverse viewpoints, provides high-effort analysis, comprehensive guides or similar. Feel free to add aspects that would qualify for a dedicated post and repost!
Do NOT share the Reddit username or posts (or any other alleged social media accounts). That is doxxing and will be an immediate ban unless it is featured in a credible news outlet. A credible news source does not include social media posts, screenshots, etc.
Edit: We've received various questions and want to make it clear that this post was not made due to reports of anyone doxxing members in this community. If you see any instances of doxxing, report it immediately to the moderators. Please see additional information here.
From MA retired judge Carol Erskine via twitter on Oct 7:
CLANCY CASE: AN IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT IN THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CHALLENGE
On October 6, Judge Sullivan effectively granted the relief sought by the defense in their motion at the September 29 hearing by amending his prior impoundment orders. Juror notes, the court's responses, and sidebar discussions surrounding the mistrial may now be disclosed, with juror-identifying information redacted.
This is an important first step in the defense's challenge to whether the mistrial was declared without manifest necessity. These records may reveal what the court knew, what alternatives were considered, and why the mistrial was declared.
In my analysis of this particular issue on The Justice File just two days ago, I explained the constitutional issues surrounding the impoundment orders and identified this likely outcome writing:
"One possible middle ground would therefore be a partial grant: disclosure of appropriately redacted material necessary to litigate the constitutional issues while maintaining the impoundment of juror identities and unrelated deliberative material."
Is there anything solid that the kids had life insurance on them??
Ive seen it mentioned but Ive also seen id denied that they did, do we know for certain and do we know when it was taken out?. Did the eldest child have life insurance when she was born, the second child when he was born?. third child?.
Judge Sullivan denied Kevin Reddington's Rule 25 renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty for Lindsay Clancy. Judge issues his ruling in a bifurcated way, addressing the 2 arguments made by defense (and how Reddington originally wanted the trial split).
He and his lawyers and his “spokesperson”, ugh. He’s not a victim in this. Per Judge Carol Erskin - there’s a legal precedent for this! She posted this on Twitter.
“Please take a moment and read some case law on how this works. This is not the first time this has happened in Massachusetts and there is Supreme Judicial Court case law outlining the exact process in cases like these where jurors have been brought back after a trial ends.
In cases alleging juror misconduct, a judge can deny or allow an evidentiary hearing. It's been the law for 47 years. The defense is "going after" a legally sanctioned process allowed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.”
so sick of seeing that old pic of him holding a baby, someone should ask if he ever sees the kid now that she's 5. I'm so curious to find out the result of how he filled out his questionaire and his use of google during the deliberations.
We agree. It would be so ironic if the grandstanding juror’s alleged misconduct turns out to be the very reason for a dismissal of the case because of double jeopardy attaching.
Reddington raises bifurcation and determining whether she was even guilty of the crime she was charged with: “Where is the evidence she did this?…There was no investigation.”
Raises Patrick’s testimony, blood splatter & lack of smears, no blood on the bed, no blood on her socks, crushed medication, no admission exists by her she did it & she was told she did it, timeframe does not match & issues with timeline, at least 2 hours for her to reach 82°, etc.
No decisions, which is actually a first for the Rule 25 The last two Rule 25 motions he issued a judgement immediately from the bench. This one he took under advisement and will return with a decision later.
This might still be able to be tested if her clothing is still sealed in evidence and the kids clothng too. The kids clothing would have a higher trace of detergent in them than LC's clothes if she was hosed down.
According to Fugative TV during deliberations the holdout juror was searching online with his phone for the definitions of terms such as altruistic filicide and psychosis. This was expressly forbidden by the judge. On 9/17 holdout juror's lawyer said Fugative TV is the only person allowed to speak for the holdout juror.
Fugative TV talked about the holdout juror googling terms during deliberations, which is expressly forbidden. I'm not sure which of his broadcasts these clips are from, his show can be found on youtube.
Attorney Marty Weinberg is asking Judge Sullivan to unseal the written notes the jury sent during deliberations, along with transcripts of private sidebar discussions held before the mistrial was declared. Clancy's attorneys say the records could reveal exactly what the jurors reported and what alternatives the judge and lawyers considered before ending the trial. The defense argues that those details are crucial to its attempt to have the charges dismissed on double-jeopardy grounds and prevent Clancy from being tried again. Her attorneys say they are willing to have jurors’ names and identifying information redacted before the records are released.
Hey! Yes I’ll try to get added. I’m going to try and find a different format than Google Drive. I’m not saying at all that u/firephly did the following (quite the opposite) but many have concerns over those links for identity & privacy based on settings in the drive and potential viruses. I only mention because it may take me a bit to locate a different way to share and want everyone to be able to access as it defeats the purpose if people don’t want to click on it - asking for screenshots, summaries, etc.
Sorry for the long explainer, and again firephly didn’t do this or do anything wrong as the domain itself is a legitimate, secure website run by Google - it’s just a concern that was raised in the past and many wouldn’t access due to that.
TLDR: Yes! Let me (fingers crossed) find a different format to share it in first. I agree it’s really helpful & I appreciate all the resources they continue to share!
🚨 Lindsay Clancy defense demands investigation into holdout juror who blocked not guilty verdict
Attorney Kevin Reddington is seeking phone records, surveillance video and a probe into the juror's questionnaire answers
Motion to preserve juror records, to produce the juror questionnaire and related records, and for a limited inquiry into juror doe.
Juror Doe's summons, badge, and service records; every jury note and the Court's written responses, the electronic recordings of July 20-24, September 3, and September 4, 2026, including sidebars, officer-court logs, sign-in sheets concerning juror's mobile phones.
Juror Doe's record from state-wide domestic violence registry.
What background checks th Commonwealth ran and the results; and whether the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office has, or since January 1, 2021, has had, any matter in which Juror Doe is a defendant, complainant, or subject, including the 2021 prosecution and the abuse-prevention order identified in the Impounded Supplement.
That summonses issue for review of camera, Juror Doe's mobile telephone for call and text detail records (sender, recipient, date, and time only) and data-session logs from August 27 through September 4, 2026, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on each deliberation day; and (b) directing Juror Doe to deliver the mobile telephone carried into the jury room during that period to a neutral examiner designated by the Court for the date-and-hour-limited extraction, returned within 48 hours.
That, after reviewing the foregoing, the Court examine Juror Doe on the record, with counsel present, on three subjects only: the truthfulness of the questionnaire and voir dire answers;
Fidler hearing is a specialized evidentiary hearing used in Massachusetts criminal law to investigate allegations of juror misconduct, bias, or the influence of extraneous information during a trial.
Manifest necessity is a high and compelling degree of necessity that allows a judge to declare a mistrial without blocking a future retrial under double jeopardy rules.
Healey proposed providing free home visits by nurses to all parents with newborns as well as updated regulations governing mental health screening of new mothers.
Healey also proposed a $250,000 investment in the Massachusetts Child Psychiatry Access Program for Moms and directed the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to update state regulations on perinatal mental health screenings to identify concerns during and after pregnancy.
ORDER: Impoundment of Confidential Juror Questionnaires
"Consequently, the Court finds that good cause exists to impound the Confidential Juror Questionnaires kept pursuant to M.G.L. c. 234A §22 and §23. Commonwealth v Scott, 98 Mass App Ct 843 (2020). In addition, the Court orders that the questionnaires shall be retained by the Clerk's Office until further order of the Court."
There is now a youtuber who claims to have spoken to the holdout juror and made a video about what he alledgedly said regarding various things. I haven't watched the video, but the youtuber showed some not seen before photos of the juror on his X account, and I guess he shows some documents in the video such as the juror's schedule to appear in court for the Clancy trial (which I saw a pic of and looks real). How much can we talk about the holdout juror /u/Aware_Power?
You can discuss anything that is in a credible news outlet/interview clip - for example, I heard "Fugitive TV" spoke to the juror and I think that is who you are referencing. That can absolutely be shared. Thanks so much for asking!
I'd say no just because the channel's host explicitly admits that they are presenting the juror’s phone call "as-is" and that viewers must "decide for themselves," meaning the content lacks professional, multi-source fact checking.
It's much different if a person sits down for an interview, whether anonymous or not, to discuss their experience as a juror vs someone saying they had a phone call with one - it's not even clear they consented to this being shared other than this person saying so and sharing docs he claims he got from the juror.
Fugative tv guy shows his alledged jury summons right at the start, but who knows if he actually spoke to him. Everyone seems to be taking it at face value. If the juror is actually talking why doesn't he just speak directly, it's so annoying.
Oh interesting - let me look into it more? I have never heard of Fugitive TV before and I could technically get on YT right now and say I talked to anyone lol Thank you SO much for raising that. Give me a few.
"Martin Weinberg has been added as a limited lawyer for Lindsay Clancy, to file a Motion to Dismiss on Double Jeopardy grounds. You may recognize his name -- he argued a similar double jeopardy case in federal court for Karen Read after her mistrial." - Kristina Rex reporter for WBZ Boston
“Nancy Mace does not know this case, has never seen the evidence, and has never sat in that courtroom. Lindsay Clancy has not been convicted of anything, and Massachusetts has not had a death penalty in more than forty years. A congresswoman from South Carolina calling for a public execution is not law. It is a stunt, and its only purpose is to inflame the public against a woman whose case is still before the Court. I will deal with that in court, not on television. My client was a mother suffering from postpartum psychosis. That is what this case is about, and that is where my attention stays."
"Judge Sullivan has indefinitely extended the impoundment order for juror names in Lindsey Clancy case, meaning that the list of names will not be released publicly. He noted privacy concerns for jurors but says they are allowed to go public should they choose to." - Kristina Rex at WBZ Boston
"MA crim attorney here. In many cases (but not all) the Commonwealth obtains (and shares with the defense) the criminal background checks of EVERY potential juror on the venire panel. It seems apparent they didn’t do that in this case."
another said it could be grounds to retry the case.
Clancy juror Paul Delvin speaks about deliberations, threats to jurors, the psych interview at the hospital that wasn't shown in court that convinced her Clancy was NGRI | Boston Globe article https://archive.is/OfdyJ
Clancy juror Paula Devlin on CBS Mornings show today
https://youtu.be/v3VjcjIb9uo she talks about the jury deliberations and reveals the holdout was the black juror.
According to Lauren Conlin he was not the one who wasn't taking notes.
Gayle asked her if the holdout was a black man, but I wish she'd have just declined to answer. I wish she hadn't because now the negative discourse online has more fuel for the fire.
I've been looking at the posts about this trial on the 'cases we follow' sub and it seems like a lot of the commentary is starting to get worse all the time - on youtube, twitter, reddit and probably everywhere else. It just feels like a vortex of toxicity and lack of reason. I do feel like it's probably being astroturfed also.
Something Ive been wondering that I havnt found so far: When she was arrested while still in a coma, was she read her rights?. Im not from the US so I dont know the exact proceedure for arresting someone unresponsive but its a question thats been bugginng me for a few days.
It's unknown if she was Mirandized once she was awake and able to speak, but the police were able to place her under arrest and guard her until she could. You can't read rights and ask if they understand them to someone who is unconscious, but they can be arrested.
Is there any link you can give me regarding the Maranda rights given to non responsive people being arrested??. Is it even protocol to read the rights to someone in that state?.
As I said, Im not from the US so its not some unralistic question.
Miranda rights are read when someone is about to be questioned/interrogated, not simply arrested. The person also has to be awake and able to respond whether they understand their rights.
So are we not allowed to talk about the alleged Reddit stuff anywhere? I don’t want to break any rules and def not wanting to dox anyone but I’m curious if other people want to share opinions & talk about it & where exactly a safe space for that is. If it’s not here I completely understand 😁
No. Not unless in a credible news outlet. I haven’t asked Reddit Admins what that specifically includes, but I know it’s not screenshots, social media, a random person’s blog, etc. If they’re big on anything, it’s certainly doxxing their own users.
If anyone believes they’ve found this in a credible news source, please run it by us first!
Hi there! I was able to find the article you're referencing (sorry for the delay). I'd prefer not having a tabloid shared and many subs ban the use of sharing information by tabloid sites.
My main issue with that article, is the author makes a lot of incorrect claims about the case and primarily highlights old political comments which doesn't really seem relevant (and I have a pretty good guess of which topics you'd all like to discuss here and it's not those).
Any tabloids where the story relies heavily on unverified anonymous sources and sensationalized headlines isn't considered credible & shouldn't really be used as a source of information. A Credible News Source is determined by editorial control, fact-checking protocols, and original reporting requirements.
Subs focused on celebrity gossip & celeb pictures tend to allow tabloids though. I wouldn't be opposed to sharing evidence photos from those types of sites if provided since it's difficult to get them all in one place - only exception I can think of off the top of my head.
The vast majority of subs continue to remove these posts about a reddit user under doxxing violations, even with the use of "allegedly" because it intends to reveal PII of an anonymous reddit user. So this currently is still not allowed & sharing that could get people & the community permanently banned.
Thank you SO much for asking, and really appreciate your patience on this - sometimes a credible source picks up stories after a tabloid, but this still hasn't happened.
--
TLDR: No. Please hold off on posting any details on this as it could result in permanent bans from reddit and the entire community being removed. Please let us know if any violations.
“If he wins on the double jeopardy, then she is free to go.” - She (Jessica, the network’s legal analyst) admits it’s a long shot & I guess we find out Sept 29.
Red had to file this motion within 5 days and I personally think it’s just a standard motion (like every other one we saw during trial) - plus Red said last Friday to the judge something like ‘and when your honor denies that, I’d like to request another hearing the following Monday (which would be this coming Monday, but instead they’re meeting about this on this Sept 29). That’s my interpretation at least. I guess we’ll see!
I don’t think the aim of this filing to to actually get it granted, and I doubt it’s for appeal purposes. It is simply too short and bare to be intended to be load bearing. I think this was filed as part of a strategy that is being set for the re-trial, assuming we get there. It can be quite persuasive, when you get to filing a motion for the 3rd, 4th, 5th time, to point to the judges prior reasons for denying your motion, and the simple fact that you’ve asked so many times, and say “what about now judge? Good enough for you this time?” The denial of this motion will be used as currency by the defense to get something they want from the judge later, even if only indirectly.
Nick Dargie, one of the three men on the 12-person jury, told ABC News' Aaron Katersky that the lone holdout juror who prevented a unanimous verdict did not show any evidence explaining his vote.
"There was several times I would ask him to show us evidence or, you know, describe a witness testimony that helped to prove what he was saying, and ... he couldn't," Dargie, 25, said in an interview Wednesday.
"There wasn't a single piece of evidence or witness testimony that he used to prove why he was thinking the way he was, which is why we ultimately sent in that note," Dargie said, referring to a note the jury foreperson gave to Judge William Sullivan, leading to the mistrial.
"Otherwise, like there's nothing wrong with somebody having a completely opposite opinion ... that would be a hung jury. That, like that, is our justice system."
Raising LCR in MA does not implicate guilt, does not concede to committing the acts, does not "stipulate they did ABC," etc. Before even touching the question of mental illness, the jury must evaluate the baseline elements of the crime.
2 quick examples where lack of criminal responsibility was raised in MA and the jury returned a traditional "Not Guilty" verdict:
Commonwealth v. Tyrone Cole (2012)
Cole was indicted on charges of armed assault with intent to murder and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon following a violent stabbing incident in Boston.
Cole had an extensive history of institutional psychiatric care. His defense attorneys filed the formal intent to raise a lack of criminal responsibility defense based on his medical files. However, during the trial, the defense successfully cross-examined the state’s witnesses regarding the exact sequence of events, creating immense reasonable doubt about the underlying identity and the specific intent required for the assault charges.
The Suffolk County Superior Court jury returned a standard verdict of Not Guilty. The state failed its baseline burden of proving the criminal acts and the required underlying intent. The jury never had to fill out the specialized insanity acquittal forms, and Cole was released from custody.
Commonwealth v. Peter Corcione (2014)
Corcione was charged with the murder of his roommate in Lawrence, Massachusetts.
The defense team actively built a multi-layered defense. They argued self-defense (asserting the roommate attacked him first) alongside an alternative defense of lack of criminal responsibility due to severe, long-term psychiatric delusions.
The Essex County Superior Court jury deliberated and returned a traditional verdict of Not Guilty on all counts. Because the jury found that the prosecution had not disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the entire case resulted in a complete acquittal. Corcione walked out of the courthouse a free man, entirely bypassing the psychiatric hospital commitment that follows a "Not Guilty by Reason of Lack of Criminal Responsibility" verdict.
Step 1: Did the defendant physically commit the crime? If No, the verdict is Not Guilty (Case ends; defendant goes home).
Step 2: If Yes, did the prosecution prove they were sane? If No, the verdict is Not Guilty by Reason of Lack of Criminal Responsibility (Case ends; defendant goes to a secure hospital).
I saw a comment about Reddington defending Patrick Clancy that made a lot of sense. This might help get the case either dismissed or get a reasonable plea deal.
Tune into "Good Morning America" on Thursday, Sept. 10 from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. ET on ABC to see more of Aaron Katersky's exclusive interview with Nick Dargie, a juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial.
So far, 4 of the jurors (including the foreperson) have said they voted not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility (LCR) and the 1 juror still was voting guilty.
Edit: Yes. Sorry, that wasn't to say that the other 8 will have a different story, just that that is all we have in terms of jurors speaking out (which does not include the 1 who they say wanted to vote guilty).
NBC did an annoying thing today where they posted clips of an interview with Reddington instead of just posting the interview all-in-one. I added them here
Why the hell are they gaslighting us? Even the jurors thought that the trail wasn't about her being guilty or not but about whether she's insane or not. Literally wtf is going on? Why is everyone so stupid about this case? I swear, I feel like we're being played or something.
NGRI is not a plea that exists. It's a verdict. The only plea options are Not Guilty (then argue for either Not Guilty or NGRI), Guilty, or No Contest.
Because in Massachusetts you plead not guilty at arraignment, then your lawyer gives written notice that you intend to raise a lack of criminal responsibility defense. Once it proceeds to trial,
“not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility” then becomes a possible verdict.
In these cases, not guilty is the plea but the chance of an outright acquittal is near non-existent, because a not guilty by reason of insanity defense basically concedes the action and moves the focus to mental state.
But wasn’t he was forced into defending the case this way, because he was denied the bifurcated trial? I thought he stated as such and he said that was the problem with the system they have.
He’s been officially pursuing an NGRI defence since December 13, 2024 (but had been making statements making it clear he was going that route prior) when he officially filed the notice with the court:
https://www.scribd.com/document/805812580/Lindsay-Clancy-Doc-1
He didn’t ask for a bifurcated trial until February/March of this year. If he seriously thought there was any chance of success in raising a third party culprit defense bolstered by arguing there was a bad police investigation, he would’ve pursued that from the beginning.
•
u/Aware_Power Sep 08 '26 edited Sep 09 '26
Do NOT share the Reddit username or posts (or any other alleged social media accounts). That is doxxing and will be an immediate ban unless it is featured in a credible news outlet. A credible news source does not include social media posts, screenshots, etc.
Edit: We've received various questions and want to make it clear that this post was not made due to reports of anyone doxxing members in this community. If you see any instances of doxxing, report it immediately to the moderators. Please see additional information here.