Mistrial
I don’t mean to inundate you with emails today, but if you get online or talk to your circle of friends and talk about the Lindsay Clancy mistrial, you need to know something significant.

I don’t mean to inundate you with emails today, but if you get online or talk to your circle of friends and talk about the Lindsay Clancy mistrial, you need to know something significant.
I don’t mean to inundate you with emails today, but if you get online or talk to your circle of friends and talk about the Lindsay Clancy mistrial, you need to know something significant.
Massachusetts is the only state in the nation where, if a judge allows a defendant to argue they were insane based on certain criteria, then the jury, when they deliberate, must assume the defendant is insane, and the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was actually sane.
How do you show Lindsay Clancy was sane when she strangled her three toddlers, slit her own throat, and jumped out a second-story window, rendering her permanently paralyzed?
That’s a pretty tough thing for the prosecution to show.
My guess is that the jury was not going for “not guilty” but “not guilty by reason of insanity” with one hold out.
You lawyers can read the Massachusetts model jury instruction here.
You won’t get that nuance from the online mob, but it is deeply relevant.
Send this story to anyone — or drop the embed into a blog post, Substack, Notion page. Every play sends rev-share back to Erick Erickson's Show Notes.
We’ve simplified responses to 👍 / 👎. Past comments are archived but no longer visible.